Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?
Lee
Think you just overlooked the verses.
People on this forum quite often quote all kinds of the (more) literal versions.
In fact I quoutes a verse from CLV yesterday.
Not being a KJV fan it's still the electronic version I use most because the Strongs linked to it are so handy.
Perhaps (many) others feel/do the same?
Thank-you for replying!
I have seen some inaccurracies presented in every version,(incuding the CLNT), but it has been, by far, the most usefull Bible I've ever picked up. With English being so idiomatic, its hard to find a version that "WON'T" pick up some of the predudices of the translators, but with a concordant method, at least I can see where those are at.
Lee
Lee,
Most Bible software allows you to compare a verse in different translations.
I often compare KJV with a handfull of teh more literal versions.
You may like: http://www.scripture4all.org/
It's free.
Contains CLV.
And above all shows you the source of CLV. -> more literal 1 on one translation.
I think it's well worth spending 30 minutes of your time one.
(after that you will use it quite often I think)
I've never been able to get any of those online Bible software programs to work on my computer, either this one or the previous computer. They'd download and open, and then it would be blank when I'd open it, even after downloading the accompanying modules for YLT and CV. Just tried it again, just to prove to myself, that for whatever reason, ain't happenin' on any of the computers I use. LOL! Checked every single menu and although the menu might say what you'd normally expect, nothing would come up under any setting.
Thank-you WW. I'll give that a try when I get to a different computer. The software settings at work don't allow me to download files onto or thru the system.
Lee
Quote from: martincisneros on June 11, 2009, 03:23:24 PM
I've never been able to get any of those online Bible software programs to work on my computer, either this one or the previous computer. They'd download and open, and then it would be blank when I'd open it, even after downloading the accompanying modules for YLT and CV. Just tried it again, just to prove to myself, that for whatever reason, ain't happenin' on any of the computers I use. LOL! Checked every single menu and although the menu might say what you'd normally expect, nothing would come up under any setting.
Talking about ISA Martin? That comes up with text out of the box.
I do give remote support. Just shout.....
I downloaded the software and Add-on versions, but the only text that will come up when I'm off-line is the KJV, and the interlinear. The other tabs show up, but when they are highlited, the window is void of text.
Lee
What version of Windows you have?
QuoteOS:
Windows XP, Vista,
Windows 2000 (needs gdiplus.dll)
Windows 98SE (needs gdiplus.dll)
ISA 2.0 RC7 does not work yet with Windows 7 RC but an update is underway.
.pdf versions
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
XP
I think that stands for "extra problems" :winkgrin:
Don't have much Xtra Problems here.
ISA should work. Unfortunately should is not always equal to will....
Could be if your system isn't fully up to date.
Run Windows update if possible.
But first try downloading gdiplus.dll
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=6A63AB9C-DF12-4D41-933C-BE590FEAA05A&displaylang=en (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=6A63AB9C-DF12-4D41-933C-BE590FEAA05A&displaylang=en)
or
http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?gdiplus (http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/dll-files.shtml?gdiplus)
http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/pop.php?gdiplus (http://www.dll-files.com/dllindex/pop.php?gdiplus)
After unzipping, copy the "gdiplus.dll" file to the "c:\program files\ISA2\" directory.
or if you have a 64-bit XP
After unzipping, copy the "gdiplus.dll" file to the "c:\program files (x86)\ISA2\" directory.
Just reinstalled the program.
I got a warning box:
QuoteInput fields displaying Hebrew text with vowel signs will not
display correctly.
To resolve this, install the files for complex script and right-
to-left languages.
Did you follow those instructions?
Should only affect the Hebrew (OT) I think.
Quote from: lsmann2 on June 11, 2009, 06:52:20 PM
XP
I think that stands for "extra problems" :winkgrin:
I thought it was just my computer. I miss Windows2000 Professional BADLY!!!!!!!!! I want that program on the latest, best hardware and processor with obscene amounts of video memory, RAM, and harddrive space. And it would probably mean having to have a bunch of updates and whatever weird plug-ins or whatever else to have the latest programs otherwise. But I wouldn't care. I want a computer that makes sense and does what I tell it to do and that doesn't ignore the clicking of a shortcut to a program I'd paid for, that happens to be my registry repair program so that there's no way of fixing the darn shortcut without it! I can access every program, or most of them, on this computer that have been freebies, but anything I've paid for and "good luck." I just want someone to STOP THE INSANITY!!! with these computers since I've heard that Vista's worse, although I'm tempted by Vista Ultimate, but am not sure if I know anybody with it that could give it the :thumbdown: :thumbdown: or the :2thumbs:
MS extended the life of XP. Major box shifters like Dell still have XP preinstalled.
That should give you enough info....
As for the shortcut. You can just directly run the program. Or edit the shortcut. Or create a new one.
QuoteI can access every program, or most of them, on this computer that have been freebies, but anything I've paid for and "good luck."
What lesson did you learn from that....? :laughing7:
ISA2 is free so should work :winkgrin:
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 11, 2009, 08:50:15 PMAs for the shortcut. You can just directly run the program. Or edit the shortcut. Or create a new one.
No, I haven't been able to run it directly either going to start up and hitting run or from the menu of programs. Neither options have worked. They work when they want to, or when the computer's brain is back from lunch or coffee or messin' around with the cute laptop in the next building. I still catch the computer every once in a while still putting back on it's outer case. Friggin' perv! :icon_jokercolor:
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 11, 2009, 08:50:15 PMWhat lesson did you learn from that....? :laughing7:
Don't buy cheap programs. If there's a $30 to $35 version and a $99, then wait until I can comfortably buy the $99.
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 11, 2009, 08:50:15 PMISA2 is free so should work :winkgrin:
Still doesn't. But I'll mess with it later when I really have an interest in having a Bible on my computer. I've been sharing the Gospel online since August of '01, (I'm thinking that's about when AbbasChild ran across me and joined the mailing list at the time.) although I think others had snuck a thing or two of mine online previous to that. But in the time that I've been online, have always just used my spirit's memory, my Bibles, and biblegateway.com and in more recent years studylight.org Usually if I want to mess with Greek and Hebrew beyond my current at home resources, then I'll wander over to a really great Christian bookstore called Mardel that's a couple of miles from me or so, and it's an excuse to look through everything from the Reference section to the devotionals to the current debates about stuff to whether or not there are any Bibles worth buying and to hang out in the music department listening to CDs I don't have in case there's either anything I want to buy or come home and download from online.
If I could have my internet connection in the middle of a Mardel, I'd be extremely happy. It's like a Christian version of Barnes and Noble. A bit bigger than a lot of the other Christian bookstores I've seen. Homeschooling supplies for kids of all ages from really really little to ministerial stuff like communion sets, baptismal certificates and blank ordination cards and certificates, to all of the light pop Christian reading and music to the various types of Christian artwork someone might want to accent their home with is all right there. I'd rather hang out there, to be perfectly honest, than to even be online. I've offered to work there several times even if it was just minimum wage, but never have been hired yet. I genuinely love the place THAT MUCH. Funny if they happened to google applicants or if I was more notorious than I realized locally, but perhaps God keeping me from working there to keep me focused on what I'm doing right now.
God's kept me online for a reason, and I'm starting to understand what He had in mind all along as His primary reason, besides the ultimate of ministering to a wider selection of people from all walks of life. I could hang out there all day everyday and never even miss the internet in the slightest with one exception that I won't get into here. But I'll mess around with the downloadable Bible software every once in a while as a possible teaching tool for helping my roommate the brief moments they're open to my sharing anything, since they're a bit leery of the flow my Biblical understanding has been taking this decade. Dumping Hell, they could kinda see, but dumping carnal rapture and some other stuff and now I've really crossed over the line supposedly!
Quote from: martincisneros on June 11, 2009, 09:34:12 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 11, 2009, 08:50:15 PMWhat lesson did you learn from that....? :laughing7:
Don't buy cheap programs. If there's a $30 to $35 version and a $99, then wait until I can comfortably buy the $99
The $99 versions very often are 100% the same as the $30 version. It's the password that unlocks more functionality.
Personally I buy
nothing without having tested it.
BTW I sell ISA2 for $99. Should be stable then :laughing7:
No thanks! LOL! I know what you mean that higher price isn't always better and you've really got to do your homework on it before you buy. I use a lot of freebies on this computer, like Avast antiviral home edition -- although I've tried the professional version and genuinely hope to permanently transition to having that one ASAP. But it's like $80 a year or something like that. But I'll download the trial version every once in a while and use it for the 90 days. The annoying popups about it's about to expire can get on your last nerves though. I've got a couple of spyware and adware programs that are freebies, and I use the free version of Skype. Haven't yet signed up for an actual phone number via it 'cause I'm leery of pay as you go phones. The EXTREMELY RARE times I'm on the phone, it's usually at least an hour or more. Got someone I'm hoping to spend a bit more time than that in prayer with on the phone one of these days, and if I were using "pay as you go" that would really really eat my lunch. So, so far, just a regular land line or a MetroPCS have sufficed, besides freebie Skype. I'm not against freebie programs, but there is the occasional program where they lure you in with the trial version doing 2 out of the 75 things it's capable of doing and you wind up weighing whether you need the extra 73 options and if even 20 to 40 of them (or even a dozen) make total sense for your needs, then you tend to get the card out and hope for the best when they send you the key that'll unlock the rest of it.
Very likely nobody that's a regular to these boards will be able to receive this, but since this is a publicly viewable board, I'll go ahead and share the Word of the Lord that just came to me for any lurkers, particularly from my Charismatic/Word of Faith background that would understand this without my elaborating on what I'm saying in the light of my previous post that the Lord put this in the framework with: "the tithe is the registry key."
Again, I won't argue it or whatever, and it's only for those that have ears to hear what the Spirit is saying on that, with regards to flowing with His High Priestly ministry in the earth.
Quote from: martincisneros on June 11, 2009, 10:43:47 PM
No thanks! LOL! I know what you mean that higher price isn't always better and you've really got to do your homework on it before you buy. I use a lot of freebies on this computer, like Avast antiviral home edition -- although I've tried the professional version and genuinely hope to permanently transition to having that one ASAP. But it's like $80 a year or something like that.
I would like to suggest trying this one: http://www.eset.com/products/nod32.php
$40 for the first year
$28 for renewals
Or cheaper if bought in 2-year 'contracts'
Try the demo. And get hooked like almost all who tried it.
I like to use the Rotherham's Emphasized Bible. It's on my iPod Touch. :bigGrin: Unfortunately though, I usually keep my iPod out in my car, so I usually wind up using biblegateway.com. Generally I use the Amplified Bible and the Young's Literal Translation (when I'm on that website).
Quote from: martincisneros on June 11, 2009, 09:34:12 PM
If I could have my internet connection in the middle of a Mardel, I'd be extremely happy. It's like a Christian version of Barnes and Noble. A bit bigger than a lot of the other Christian bookstores I've seen. !
There's a Mardel up in Springfield. You're right, it's a great store. And often they'll drop prices on certain things 50%-75% when they need to make room. IIRC they are affiliated with Hobby Lobby, which is another great store.
Quote from: lsmann2 on June 11, 2009, 07:50:50 AM
Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?
Lee
Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now. I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.
Paul
I know every time I've used it in a "church" setting, "the powers that be" have told me it's a really bad translation.
Since they are all trained theologians from Dallas, I've become even more attached to it! :thumbsup:
When the fire-breathing "Satan's gonna live forever" crowd fights something tooth and nail, there's gotta be something really good about it.
Lee
Dallas :happygrin:. My sister said this past week that her pastor (Baptist) knows a lot about the Greek. I said the seminaries usually have their own interpretations of what the words mean...didn't sense that went over real big.
The CLV is not my absolute favorite, but I do use it; it's one of my favorites. James (reFormer) quotes from it a lot. I usually quote from The Christian Bible (1991), Young's, or (though IMO it's less accurate but I like the way it reads) the New American Standard.
I like to read the Weymouth translation.
It has that English prose to it like the King James.
But, as I understand, less error.
I really didn't (still don't, really) know much about Weymouth. Found this by Gary Amirault regarding it, thought it was interesting;
"The original Weymouth 's New Testament, for example, did not contain the word Hell in it at all. After he died, a couple of ministers republished Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech Translation, put the words "Hell" back into it and didn't inform the reader that they had changed the original translator's work to conform to their Dark Age tradition rather than leaving it as it was correctly translated."
Yea, Jab,
that is interesting.
Man, the devil gets his hands in everything.
Quote from: martincisneros on June 11, 2009, 03:23:24 PM
I've never been able to get any of those online Bible software programs to work on my computer
I've put something online that might work for you. It's a special packed version of ISA 2.
http://www.scripture4all.org/ (http://www.scripture4all.org/)
Download the 34 MB file. And just start it. Nothing to install.
It starts and works. Or doesn't work at all.
It also works directly from for example an USB stick.
Download: https://rcpt.yousendit.com/703444832/12d863b12193f64461bccbab9f6f8bc4 (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/703444832/12d863b12193f64461bccbab9f6f8bc4)
The link expires in 7 days. (If you read this after the link expired PM me and I'll renew it)
If this works; and there is need for it I can also build a pre-setup e-Sword. Also just one file. No install. Click and go USB stick version.
Quote from: lsmann2 on June 11, 2009, 05:35:05 PM
I downloaded the software and Add-on versions, but the only text that will come up when I'm off-line is the KJV, and the interlinear. The other tabs show up, but when they are highlited, the window is void of text.
Lee
Where you see "av" on the upper right and the Authorized Version below, just right click on the letters av and you can see you can click on the clv to get the Concordant Literal Version to come up.
Tony
Quote from: trettep on June 16, 2009, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: lsmann2 on June 11, 2009, 07:50:50 AM
Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?
Lee
Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now. I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.
Paul
Paul,
I've been using the CLNT since the 70's and haven't yet seen anything blasphemous in it. Some may think I am biased because I was so thrilled by it that I've been working for Concordant Publishing for many years now.
Here is a guy who may have been the one saying it has blasphemous stuff in it and my response to him:
http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html
There are three parts to my reply to him.
Tony
Quote from: Tony N on June 20, 2009, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 16, 2009, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: lsmann2 on June 11, 2009, 07:50:50 AM
Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?
Lee
Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now. I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.
Paul
Paul,
I've been using the CLNT since the 70's and haven't yet seen anything blasphemous in it. Some may think I am biased because I was so thrilled by it that I've been working for Concordant Publishing for many years now.
Here is a guy who may have been the one saying it has blasphemous stuff in it and my response to him:
http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html
There are three parts to my reply to him.
Tony
Tony, I have found it to be blasphemous in how it interprets certain tenses. I can recall such a conversation with you in the discussion of Works thread some time back.
Paul
I have a print version of the CLNT, but online I quote other translations.
Quote from: trettep on June 20, 2009, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: Tony N on June 20, 2009, 03:44:52 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 16, 2009, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: lsmann2 on June 11, 2009, 07:50:50 AM
Hello,
I've been here for less than a "work-week" of hours, and I have yet to see anyone post a scripture reference containing a quote from A.E. Knoch's Concordant Literal New Testament or the Concordant Version of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have no "dog in the fight" over which Bible version to use, but I was introduced to the theology of Universal Reconciliation by A.E.Knoch's writings, including the Concordant Literal New Testament.
Is there a reason I don't see any references?
Lee
Based on my experience here, someone awhile back posted some verses from the CLV and it led me to conclude that it promoted some blasphemous renderings so I don't use it at all now. I have it loaded only to see what others see the context that others who quote from the CLV see.
Paul
Paul,
I've been using the CLNT since the 70's and haven't yet seen anything blasphemous in it. Some may think I am biased because I was so thrilled by it that I've been working for Concordant Publishing for many years now.
Here is a guy who may have been the one saying it has blasphemous stuff in it and my response to him:
http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html
There are three parts to my reply to him.
Tony
Tony, I have found it to be blasphemous in how it interprets certain tenses. I can recall such a conversation with you in the discussion of Works thread some time back.
Paul
Hi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?
Thanks
Tony
Quote from: Tony N on June 20, 2009, 06:45:31 PMHi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?
Thanks
Tony
Hi Tony, an example we discussed before was Romans 5:20:
CLV
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing.
Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
YLT
Rom 5:20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and
where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,
Notice how the tense is interpreted there. YLT is showing past tense while the CLV shows the present tense.
Here is a pickup of where this was discussed a bit before in the works thread http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4944.475
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 20, 2009, 09:56:10 PM
Quote from: Tony N on June 20, 2009, 06:45:31 PMHi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?
Thanks
Tony
Hi Tony, an example we discussed before was Romans 5:20:
CLV
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
YLT
Rom 5:20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,
Notice how the tense is interpreted there. YLT is showing past tense while the CLV shows the present tense.
Here is a pickup of where this was discussed a bit before in the works thread http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4944.475
Paul
You call that blasphemous?
Dear Paul, Knoch was showing the aorist form of the verb.
Quote from: Tony N on June 21, 2009, 06:09:28 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 20, 2009, 09:56:10 PM
Quote from: Tony N on June 20, 2009, 06:45:31 PMHi Paul,
I'm not being combative or anything but just curious if you could give me a verse you believe is blasphemous in the CLNT?
Thanks
Tony
Hi Tony, an example we discussed before was Romans 5:20:
CLV
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
YLT
Rom 5:20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,
Notice how the tense is interpreted there. YLT is showing past tense while the CLV shows the present tense.
Here is a pickup of where this was discussed a bit before in the works thread http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4944.475
Paul
You call that blasphemous?
Dear Paul, Knoch was showing the aorist form of the verb.
Yes, I do. I know the verb is aorist but the CLV is using the present tense.
Paul
It is actually a timeless sense as in John 3:16 "God thus loves the world." The KJV and other versions say: "God so loved the world" as if His love ended, as in past tense.
Some novels today are written in the aorist tense as:
"This guy comes into the bar, shoots this guy, then he takes out a hatchet and begins whacking away at some of the patrons, runs out of the bar where the cops shoot him." Yet the incident may have happened a year earlier.
Quote from: Tony N on June 22, 2009, 12:45:24 AM
It is actually a timeless sense as in John 3:16 "God thus loves the world." The KJV and other versions say: "God so loved the world" as if His love ended, as in past tense.
Some novels today are written in the aorist tense as:
"This guy comes into the bar, shoots this guy, then he takes out a hatchet and begins whacking away at some of the patrons, runs out of the bar where the cops shoot him." Yet the incident may have happened a year earlier.
We disagree Tony. I have Dr. Young's literal translation and if Dr. Young wanted to translated it in the present tense then I'm sure he would have.
Consider the very next verse as worded in the CLV:
Joh 3:17 For God does not
dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him.
Is God still dispatching His Son into the world? The Son has already been sent into the world (past tense).
Paul
Does it say God is still dispatching His Son into the world?
God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again when every enemy is under His feet:
Mat 22:44 Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'?
Then God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again for the new earth age.
Quote from: jabcat on June 16, 2009, 06:36:51 AM
Dallas :happygrin:. My sister said this past week that her pastor (Baptist) knows a lot about the Greek. I said the seminaries usually have their own interpretations of what the words mean...didn't sense that went over real big.
The CLV is not my absolute favorite, but I do use it; it's one of my favorites. James (reFormer) quotes from it a lot. I usually quote from The Christian Bible (1991), Young's, or (though IMO it's less accurate but I like the way it reads) the New American Standard.
:laughing7:
My dad went to Dallas, which explains the screwed-up theology I was raised with. It was even when Walvoord was president.
I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations, blasphemy over that? I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer. Thank you Jesus.
Quote from: Tony N on June 22, 2009, 09:32:06 PM
Does it say God is still dispatching His Son into the world?
God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again when every enemy is under His feet:
Mat 22:44 Said the Lord to my Lord, 'Sit at My right, Till I should be placing Thine enemies underneath "Thy feet!"'?
Then God is going to dispatch His Son into the world again for the new earth age.
Tony, now your talking future tense. I just read it as Dr. Young interpreted it. Were not going to agree on this Topic. I just wanted to mention that I felt the CLV was blasphemous in interpreting verses as it does and provided a specific reference to show the case. I don't want to get into a debate about it. Just wanted to give another perspective.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 09:40:22 PM
I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations, blasphemy over that? I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer. Thank you Jesus.
I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous. It is the biggest crime of the modern era. It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 22, 2009, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 09:40:22 PM
I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations, blasphemy over that? I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer. Thank you Jesus.
I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous. It is the biggest crime of the modern era. It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.
Paul
Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed. Good luck.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 22, 2009, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 09:40:22 PM
I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations, blasphemy over that? I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer. Thank you Jesus.
I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous. It is the biggest crime of the modern era. It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.
Paul
Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed. Good luck.
Blasphemy means to "hold cheap" or defame. When we hold God to something cheaper then we commit blasphemy. When we present God's Word in a light that paints a different picture of His nature then we commit blasphemy. Words are the most powerful thing I know. God used His Word to create the Kosmos. Words are so powerful that men have been executed or liberated by the very use of words. If we don't have concern for the meaning of words in the Bible then we have errored. We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. As you know this website has a community of people that are very devoted to what words actually mean. So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing.
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.
What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context. But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 22, 2009, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 09:40:22 PM
I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations, blasphemy over that? I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer. Thank you Jesus.
I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous. It is the biggest crime of the modern era. It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.
Paul
Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed. Good luck.
Blasphemy means to "hold cheap" or defame. When we hold God to something cheaper then we commit blasphemy. When we present God's Word in a light that paints a different picture of His nature then we commit blasphemy. Words are the most powerful thing I know. God used His Word to create the Kosmos. Words are so powerful that men have been executed or liberated by the very use of words. If we don't have concern for the meaning of words in the Bible then we have errored. We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. As you know this website has a community of people that are very devoted to what words actually mean. So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
Paul
Paul, the aorist is showing a state of timeless fact. It has the sign of the past and sign of the future. If the aorist is blasphemy then Paul's writings are all blasphemous for he used the aorist quite often as did all the writers of the New Testament.
It think it would be better if you chose a different word than "blasphemous"
"blasphemous" according to Merriam Webster is "impiously irreverent : profane"
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 05:27:43 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing.
When is it ever foolish to be concerned about what God actually means by the things He says?
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 05:32:41 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.
What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context. But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?
I have to disagree when someone wants me to believe a lie. Don't you?
Paul
Quote from: Tony N on June 23, 2009, 06:15:31 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 22, 2009, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 22, 2009, 09:40:22 PM
I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations, blasphemy over that? I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer. Thank you Jesus.
I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous. It is the biggest crime of the modern era. It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.
Paul
Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed. Good luck.
Blasphemy means to "hold cheap" or defame. When we hold God to something cheaper then we commit blasphemy. When we present God's Word in a light that paints a different picture of His nature then we commit blasphemy. Words are the most powerful thing I know. God used His Word to create the Kosmos. Words are so powerful that men have been executed or liberated by the very use of words. If we don't have concern for the meaning of words in the Bible then we have errored. We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. As you know this website has a community of people that are very devoted to what words actually mean. So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
Paul
Paul, the aorist is showing a state of timeless fact. It has the sign of the past and sign of the future. If the aorist is blasphemy then Paul's writings are all blasphemous for he used the aorist quite often as did all the writers of the New Testament.
It think it would be better if you chose a different word than "blasphemous"
"blasphemous" according to Merriam Webster is "impiously irreverent : profane"
I never said that aorist is blasphemy. Far from it. I said that to present the verse that I quoted in the present tense amounts to blasphemy. I have no problem with aorist. As I stated before Dr. Young even in his own literal translation used PAST tense in the very verses where the CLV is using the present tense. That is Dr. Young translating the aorist. To continue in this point of saying I'm calling aorist a blasphemy is just a strawman argument. I got my definition of "to hold cheap" for blasphemy from an old latin concordance of the bible.
Paul
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...
The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.
There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
Quote from: Doc on June 23, 2009, 09:43:09 AM
There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
This?
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d940801.htm
(about halfway the article)
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 06:28:24 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 05:32:41 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.
What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context. But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?
I have to disagree when someone wants me to believe a lie. Don't you?
Paul
There is a difference between disagreeing and painting the picture of someone blaspheming and believing a lie.
Someone liking the CLV and not worrying that there might be a word here or there thats not to your liking is irrevalent to blasphemy in their life.
What I wrote is not a lie, it eliminates division and argument and shows a broader scope of scripture. If you disagree, go about your business, if you think I am just believing a lie and blapheming, then you'd rather be divided.
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 05:27:43 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing.
When is it ever foolish to be concerned about what God actually means by the things He says?
Paul
When that concern turns to division.
If I know God loves us all the time, why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too.
The problem here is the implication is that if someone is not expressing that concern like you are they are risking blasphemy, you are just promoting division. Oh and if your reading the CLV you might be risking blasphemy, it's ridiculous.
If you want to share how you view the word differences and why that increases your faith, share it, simple as that.
Paul (trettep), below is from askelm's web site referenced above:
"To get over his point (which was basically correct in concept), what Mr. Knoch should have done, in my opinion, was first to show that the English is itself full of aorist expressions (which are normally rendered in words that appear to be present tense, but are not). He could then have proceeded to show that the Greek aorist is not a whit different than our English aorist state or condition, and that it is easy and proper to render the Greek aorist into an English aorist. The aorists are equal.
"Now look at how understandable things can become when this is done. As an example, the translators of the KJV (and almost all modern translators) will take the aorist indicative to be a past tense in English, even though the very meaning of the word "aorist" demands that no time indications or limits be associated with it. Look at Romans 8:30 as translated by the KJV. "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Now, the verbs shown in bold letters are all in the Greek aorist. Notice how all the words by the King James translators are rendered in the English Past tense. While it may make doctrinal sense to say that God predestined us (in the past), that he called us (in the past), that he justified us (in the past), it is not true that God has glorified us (in the past). Indeed, our glorification will not come to us until the second advent (which is future). What the apostle Paul actually meant was that God foreordains, he calls, he makes righteous, and he glorifies (without reference to time). True, to foreordain something involves a time when the ordaining occurred, but the apostle Paul used the indefinite aspect which also shows that God may in the future foreordain others (in other worlds besides our own). Paul was showing that it is God who ordains, who calls, who makes righteous, and who glorifies people (no matter what the time is). This is like saying that tap water is liquid. It is liquid no matter what time it is being described. And the English verb describing this condition of water is not in the English present tense, it is in the English aorist which appears to be (as a homonym) like the English present. I plan to write a paper on this very subject one of these days showing extensively that the English language (in fact, with every modern European language) uses the aorist in everyday parlance and in most cases the grammarians are calling it a modified form of the present tense when it is not. The only difference between the Greek aorist and the English aorist is the fact that the Greek uses letter forms within their words to indicate the aorist and the English does not. English uses what appears to be the present tense, but it is not the present. But even the use of the "present" (as does Mr Knoch) for the aorist is not a farfetched procedure because even in the Testament we find that one writer speaking of the same event will place the verb in the present while the other places it in the aorist (see Luke 11:3 with Matthew 6:11; Luke 6:30 with Matthew 5:42; and Matthew 5:12 with Luke 6:23). Mr. Knoch could hardly be accused of inventing some newfangled grammatical usage when the apostles used either the present or the aorist to explain the same thing."
Quote from: Doc on June 23, 2009, 09:43:09 AM
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...
The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.
There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
Where is your proof of that bolded part? That is a pretty amazing statement. Maybe he was exercising his professional skill in Ancient Greek studies.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 06:28:24 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 05:32:41 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.
What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context. But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?
I have to disagree when someone wants me to believe a lie. Don't you?
Paul
There is a difference between disagreeing and painting the picture of someone blaspheming and believing a lie.
Someone liking the CLV and not worrying that there might be a word here or there thats not to your liking is irrevalent to blasphemy in their life.
What I wrote is not a lie, it eliminates division and argument and shows a broader scope of scripture. If you disagree, go about your business, if you think I am just believing a lie and blapheming, then you'd rather be divided.
Sure there is a difference. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm accusing the writing of being blasphemous.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 02:53:44 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 06:27:23 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 05:27:43 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 05:22:20 AM
So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.
And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing.
When is it ever foolish to be concerned about what God actually means by the things He says?
Paul
When that concern turns to division.
If I know God loves us all the time, why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too.
You don't doesn't mean I shouldn't. I DO CARE whether it is loved or loves.
Quote
The problem here is the implication is that if someone is not expressing that concern like you are they are risking blasphemy, you are just promoting division. Oh and if your reading the CLV you might be risking blasphemy, it's ridiculous.
That is a strawman. I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy. And I do favor division. I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.
Quote
If you want to share how you view the word differences and why that increases your faith, share it, simple as that.
Which is what I'm trying to do.
Paul
Here is the CLV:
(Mat 1:2) Abraham begets Isaac; now Isaac begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Judah and his brothers.
What Abraham really begetting Isaac at that time that was writtin? (it is present tense for the aorist). Was Isaac really begetting Jacob while Abraham was still begetting Isaac? Was Jacob really begetting Judah and his brothers all at the same time while he himself was being begetted by his father?
This is the absurdity in aorist. It is interesting that some here have posted a link that says aorist shouldn't be a "tense" at all in support for arguming that aorist should be considered present tense. From the link posted:
"Actually, though, the English aorist (or the Greek aorist) is not a present tense. After all, the present tense can easily be rendered in the Greek of the New Testament. The aorist in English or Greek is not the present tense."
It reads further:
"This is because the word "tense" is used to describe the aorist. The aorist is not a tense! The word "tense" relates to "time," but the aorist is not in any way related to "time.""
Paul
Quote from: Tony N on June 23, 2009, 05:49:36 PM
Paul (trettep), below is from askelm's web site referenced above:
"To get over his point (which was basically correct in concept), what Mr. Knoch should have done, in my opinion, was first to show that the English is itself full of aorist expressions (which are normally rendered in words that appear to be present tense, but are not). He could then have proceeded to show that the Greek aorist is not a whit different than our English aorist state or condition, and that it is easy and proper to render the Greek aorist into an English aorist. The aorists are equal.
"Now look at how understandable things can become when this is done. As an example, the translators of the KJV (and almost all modern translators) will take the aorist indicative to be a past tense in English, even though the very meaning of the word "aorist" demands that no time indications or limits be associated with it. Look at Romans 8:30 as translated by the KJV. "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Now, the verbs shown in bold letters are all in the Greek aorist. Notice how all the words by the King James translators are rendered in the English Past tense. While it may make doctrinal sense to say that God predestined us (in the past), that he called us (in the past), that he justified us (in the past), it is not true that God has glorified us (in the past). Indeed, our glorification will not come to us until the second advent (which is future). What the apostle Paul actually meant was that God foreordains, he calls, he makes righteous, and he glorifies (without reference to time). True, to foreordain something involves a time when the ordaining occurred, but the apostle Paul used the indefinite aspect which also shows that God may in the future foreordain others (in other worlds besides our own). Paul was showing that it is God who ordains, who calls, who makes righteous, and who glorifies people (no matter what the time is). This is like saying that tap water is liquid. It is liquid no matter what time it is being described. And the English verb describing this condition of water is not in the English present tense, it is in the English aorist which appears to be (as a homonym) like the English present. I plan to write a paper on this very subject one of these days showing extensively that the English language (in fact, with every modern European language) uses the aorist in everyday parlance and in most cases the grammarians are calling it a modified form of the present tense when it is not. The only difference between the Greek aorist and the English aorist is the fact that the Greek uses letter forms within their words to indicate the aorist and the English does not. English uses what appears to be the present tense, but it is not the present. But even the use of the "present" (as does Mr Knoch) for the aorist is not a farfetched procedure because even in the Testament we find that one writer speaking of the same event will place the verb in the present while the other places it in the aorist (see Luke 11:3 with Matthew 6:11; Luke 6:30 with Matthew 5:42; and Matthew 5:12 with Luke 6:23). Mr. Knoch could hardly be accused of inventing some newfangled grammatical usage when the apostles used either the present or the aorist to explain the same thing."
The argument for Romans 8:30 being present tense is the best argument you put forward so far Tony. See I'm a reasonable person but maybe you need to go back and find a way to deliver your case a bit better. Maybe saying that Aorist is "present tense" is not the right argument you should be making. The article makes a better case for saying that aorist shouldn't be a tense at all.
Paul
Most often the reason people say CLV is a "bad" translation is they think Knoch's understanding of Scripture affected the way he translated. They seldom actually know how he did the translating. They just assume what somebody else told them is true, because, "Knoch was a Universalist and that means he has a spirit of deception." If they have any knowledge of the version it is usually a misunderstanding of the fact it uses the transliterated "eon" consistently (eon, eons, eon of the eon, eon of the eons, eons of the eons, or eonian) to match the Greek. It is very hard for them to give up their romance with "eternal." To be offensively frank, those I've encountered are either not intelligent enough to understand any explanation using a few Bible references to illustrate forms of a Greek word, or, they're more concerned with controlling people to think like themselves than getting involved in Bible facts that would make them look like they were wrong. Rarely do I meet someone that has both the intelligence and candid interest to be a student of the Word.
Before encountering the CLV I stopped using the word "church" for a number of years because it was unlikely the people hearing it would think of anything other than either a religious bureachracy or its demoninational title, or they would think of the steeple house on the corner. At best, with prompting, some would think of the imaginary "invisible" universal church. With "Eclessia," which is so good to find used in the CLV, the possibility exists for the local visible gathering of members of Christ's body to come to mind.
When I found out about the Scriptural usage I almost completely stopped using the word "eternal." There are other words and phrases I don't use except by way of explanation. It is right to honor God and His Word. He says, "Who honors me, I will honor." Pretty big promise!
It's unlikely anybody who examines the versions available can find a better version in English, certainly if they care at all for access to the original languages in which God gave His revelation. The ulta-literal interlinear is superb! And it is very rewarding to use the Keywords. The one drawback is the lack of a tie-in with the Strong's numbering system that makes so many study resources available and that could be corrected in the future. For that reason and my familiarity with KJV, as well as other people being acquainted with the KJV, I still use it a lot. When people are already upset about the disparity between what they've been taught and what you're trying to communicate to them from the Word of God, it makes it all the harder if you try to introduce a translation with which they are unfamiliar. I'm convinced I need more than patience. It takes POWER to break through the blindness the god of this age has on the minds of those that believe not.
I actually don't know who Koch even is but the link is very well done and I'm going to go in depth and digest it. I think it is making a different case then what the supporters of the CLV here initially made. It is making a case that aorist is not a tense at all which is contrary to what was put forward by those here initially. I have a read a bit of the article and find myself in some agreement with some of its conclusions. That doesn't mean that I see the CLV as following suit in each case. But for example, the CLV's translation of Romans 8:30 seems more accurate than Dr. Youngs translation. But Dr. Youngs translation seems more accurate in the Roman 5:20. translation. However, the CLV's translation would explain why Paul would have clarified such a blasphemous rendering in Romans 6:1-2 when he says:
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
So Paul knew that from the previous statement that a blasphemous understanding could have been convenyed. And since I gathered the same understanding from the CLV's rendering it would incline the CLV rendering to be more inline with what Paul figured would be gleaned from the writings thus giving the CLV more weight.
I'll definately look into this much further. But for those of you promoting the CLV, stop pushing the "present tense" argument and stick with the articles argument instead. The "present tense" argument doesn't work but the aspect argument has some merit in my opinion.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 07:02:53 PM
That is a strawman. I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy. And I do favor division. I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.
Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it, just wanted to make sure. Glad you agree.
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 06:53:05 PM
Quote from: Doc on June 23, 2009, 09:43:09 AM
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...
The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.
There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
Where is your proof of that bolded part? That is a pretty amazing statement. Maybe he was exercising his professional skill in Ancient Greek studies.
Paul
Did you read the article WW linked? Tony also quoted the appropriate section of it, I believe.
I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with your POV. Trying to be true to the original language in translation into English is hardly blasphemous.
The statement I made is nothing like amazing, compared to some of the ones you make.
Professional skill is often clouded by bias. Everyone formally trained in something has biases from that training.
Ah, nevermind. I see you've read it.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 07:02:53 PM
That is a strawman. I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy. And I do favor division. I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.
Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it, just wanted to make sure. Glad you agree.
No they are not risking it. Only the CLV would be making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.
Paul
Quote from: Doc on June 23, 2009, 09:40:23 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 06:53:05 PM
Quote from: Doc on June 23, 2009, 09:43:09 AM
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...
The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.
There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
Where is your proof of that bolded part? That is a pretty amazing statement. Maybe he was exercising his professional skill in Ancient Greek studies.
Paul
Did you read the article WW linked? Tony also quoted the appropriate section of it, I believe.
I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with your POV. Trying to be true to the original language in translation into English is hardly blasphemous.
The statement I made is nothing like amazing, compared to some of the ones you make.
Professional skill is often clouded by bias. Everyone formally trained in something has biases from that training.
Ah, nevermind. I see you've read it.
I'll be reading it further. The statements the link make are different then the initial statements made in this thread about aorist meaning a present tense. The link refutes that aorist should mean present tense. However Tony's later assertion is more in line with the link and I think the link has more merit then the earlier statements of aorist being a present tense. I like to follow rational thinking and understanding. I'm not one of those that stands by what is clearly wrong. If I discover something I know is wrong then I will attempt to conform to what is right. This is how I came to the understanding of Universal Salvation in the first place. It was with much debate until I seen I couldn't refute the argument of Universal Salvation from my annihilationists views I had at that time. Before that I was an eternal torment believer.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 11:00:07 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 07:02:53 PM
That is a strawman. I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy. And I do favor division. I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.
Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it, just wanted to make sure. Glad you agree.
No they are not risking it. Only the CLV would be making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.
Paul
I like the CLV and read several others, I have on occasion compared as many as was available in an online format (never kept track of how many) when you see scripture as a whole and Gods nature and character as a whole I have to disagree that any one translation makes blasphemous statements.
For myself, I find I struggle most when I single out a word or a scripture without applying it to everything else I have studied.
For instance, "So loves the world" "So loved the world" A person trying to cause trouble could say concerning "loved".. "well, thats contradictory unless God stopped loving the world" A person can single out something like that in any existing translation.
The issue is that either way it is not blasphemous, God is Love So thats either true or not.
We can also see love as an action. The act of having loved the world does not cease and will not return void.
One of the feathers that some ETers believe they have in their cap is to discredit certain translations. For me, if a translation could be discredited that outcome would not benefit ET or UR.
It is simply about how are we going to share the hope that is in us. I am glad that I cannot find a translation where I cannot be uplifted by reading scripture from it.
Those are just my thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 11:13:15 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 11:00:07 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 07:02:53 PM
That is a strawman. I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy. And I do favor division. I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.
Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it, just wanted to make sure. Glad you agree.
No they are not risking it. Only the CLV would be making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.
Paul
I like the CLV and read several others, I have on occasion compared as many as was available in an online format (never kept track of how many) when you see scripture as a whole and Gods nature and character as a whole I have to disagree that any one translation makes blasphemous statements.
For myself, I find I struggle most when I single out a word or a scripture without applying it to everything else I have studied.
For instance, "So loves the world" "So loved the world" A person trying to cause trouble could say concerning "loved".. "well, thats contradictory unless God stopped loving the world" A person can single out something like that in any existing translation.
The issue is that either way it is not blasphemous, God is Love So thats either true or not.
We can also see love as an action. The act of having loved the world does not cease and will not return void.
One of the feathers that some ETers believe they have in their cap is to discredit certain translations. For me, if a translation could be discredited that outcome would not benefit ET or UR.
It is simply about how are we going to share the hope that is in us. I am glad that I cannot find a translation where I cannot be uplifted by reading scripture from it.
Those are just my thoughts on the matter.
So you have no problem if people come to believe that aionios means "eternal" then.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 12:08:22 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 11:13:15 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 11:00:07 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 23, 2009, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: trettep on June 23, 2009, 07:02:53 PM
That is a strawman. I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy. And I do favor division. I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.
Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it, just wanted to make sure. Glad you agree.
No they are not risking it. Only the CLV would be making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.
Paul
I like the CLV and read several others, I have on occasion compared as many as was available in an online format (never kept track of how many) when you see scripture as a whole and Gods nature and character as a whole I have to disagree that any one translation makes blasphemous statements.
For myself, I find I struggle most when I single out a word or a scripture without applying it to everything else I have studied.
For instance, "So loves the world" "So loved the world" A person trying to cause trouble could say concerning "loved".. "well, thats contradictory unless God stopped loving the world" A person can single out something like that in any existing translation.
The issue is that either way it is not blasphemous, God is Love So thats either true or not.
We can also see love as an action. The act of having loved the world does not cease and will not return void.
One of the feathers that some ETers believe they have in their cap is to discredit certain translations. For me, if a translation could be discredited that outcome would not benefit ET or UR.
It is simply about how are we going to share the hope that is in us. I am glad that I cannot find a translation where I cannot be uplifted by reading scripture from it.
Those are just my thoughts on the matter.
So you have no problem if people come to believe that aionios means "eternal" then.
Paul
The issue is not about having a problem, it is sharing why I believe it is both so that I do not simply pit my knowledge against theirs but share hope and scripture.
UR does not hinge on one word it is a manifestation of scripture as a whole.
If I believe aionios is only eternal then is their scriptural truth that the character of God and his love for mankind can be seen? Yes! Aionios can mean different aspects of "time" and this include timelessness and what is conveyed is based on context and usage, not the study of the word alone.
Gods corrective nature is eternal and God is eternal and some may awaken and be subject to that everlasting nature of God, but since the "context" of correction disqualifies a person from being punished forever then we can conclude that while we are subject to a eternal quality of God, we are not subject to it forever. We can derive this from many other scriptures.
There are other ways that keep aionios in the aspect of time. We can have a literal and a figurative context. literally our punishment / correction is temporary and figuratively we cannot perceive it's ending or it will seem like it will never end.
My point is, thats what I share, and it's not something I just make up, we are told Gods word has been preserved only to find people arguing over the right way to translate it.
I have no problems with someone saying it should be "forever" because my belief of Gods character is deeper than one word.
[quote author=Paul Hazelwood link=topic=6211.msg66380#msg66380 date=1245792530
The issue is not about having a problem, it is sharing why I believe it is both so that I do not simply pit my knowledge against theirs but share hope and scripture.
UR does not hinge on one word it is a manifestation of scripture as a whole.
If I believe aionios is only eternal then is their scriptural truth that the character of God and his love for mankind can be seen? Yes! Aionios can mean different aspects of "time" and this include timelessness and what is conveyed is based on context and usage, not the study of the word alone.
Gods corrective nature is eternal and God is eternal and some may awaken and be subject to that everlasting nature of God, but since the "context" of correction disqualifies a person from being punished forever then we can conclude that while we are subject to a eternal quality of God, we are not subject to it forever. We can derive this from many other scriptures.
There are other ways that keep aionios in the aspect of time. We can have a literal and a figurative context. literally our punishment / correction is temporary and figuratively we cannot perceive it's ending or it will seem like it will never end.
My point is, thats what I share, and it's not something I just make up, we are told Gods word has been preserved only to find people arguing over the right way to translate it.
I have no problems with someone saying it should be "forever" because my belief of Gods character is deeper than one word.
[/quote]
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. But the contrary:
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Would you say that heresies are blasphemy?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Would you say that heresies are blasphemy?
If they defame or devalue the value of the Truth then of course they are.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it, I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:19:43 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Would you say that heresies are blasphemy?
If they defame or devalue the value of the Truth then of course they are.
Paul
Well, then there is no worry about what scripture says must be.
how can anyone disagree about love?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it, I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?
What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?
Paul
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 24, 2009, 03:24:53 AM
how can anyone disagree about love?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI
Sure, Jesus even had to clarify that same understanding:
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Paul
Paul,
Your God, your Father; and
Jesus, your wondrous Brother want you to know Him in such a perfect union;
that
I am my Father in You
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:45:47 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it, I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?
What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?
Paul
My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out. My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used. But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim. Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 24, 2009, 03:57:32 AM
Paul,
Your God, your Father; and
Jesus, your wondrous Brother want you to know Him in such a perfect union;
that
I am my Father in You
Thanks Beloved.
Paul
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 04:07:37 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:45:47 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it, I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?
What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?
Paul
My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out. My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used. But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim. Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.
Paul, I say that it means something signficant to me to know the difference of Loved and loving and you seem to have a problem with that.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 04:09:10 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 04:07:37 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:45:47 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it, I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?
What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?
Paul
My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out. My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used. But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim. Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.
Paul, I say that it means something signficant to me to know the difference of Loved and loving and you seem to have a problem with that.
Paul
It is not for me to decide what should be significant for you.
I first misunderstood that you were accusing others of blasphemy, I apologize for that misunderstanding. After that I was sharing my point of view. You are welcome to disagree, if you believe that I think we can just believe how we desire, then that is not entirely accurate.
My words at that point were to convey a futility I see in any further posts between us if you are making conclusions based on a small portion of what I wrote. I do not see how further clarification will do any good. If you believe in division then it will appear to be your intention to be so.
My walk is simply not seeing that as what I should do right now. I will bid you good day.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRbA9iVKm3w&feature=related
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 04:15:31 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 04:09:10 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 04:07:37 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:45:47 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM
Then we have different views Paul. I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.
I have no problem with our differing views, but take note that saying "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote. Which is I think what you call a Strawman.
If you need me to clarify, I will.
I have no other conclusion based on your statements. Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving. Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action. So its not a strawman. You said:
"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved. I don't and do not need too."
Two different meanings. But go ahead and please clarify.
Paul
Well, if your going to extract a small portion of what I wrote and base your conclusion on it, I guess there is no point in clarifying now is there?
What do you believe I left out that would retract from that statement that you made?
Paul
My explanation of how I view either word being used is what you left out. My explanation is why I do not need to be concerned which one is used. But you extracted that small portion of what I have been writing to assert a claim. Your disagreement of my explanation is another matter.
Paul, I say that it means something signficant to me to know the difference of Loved and loving and you seem to have a problem with that.
Paul
It is not for me to decide what should be significant for you.
I first misunderstood that you were accusing others of blasphemy, I apologize for that misunderstanding. After that I was sharing my point of view. You are welcome to disagree, if you believe that I think we can just believe how we desire, then that is not entirely accurate.
My words at that point were to convey a futility I see in any further posts between us if you are making conclusions based on a small portion of what I wrote. I do not see how further clarification will do any good. If you believe in division then it will appear to be your intention to be so.
My walk is simply not seeing that as what I should do right now. I will bid you good day.
Paul, your clarification is enough for me. No need to turn away from the conversation. I'm not attached to confrontation. If you say that was not what you meant then I'm good with that.
Paul
Quote from: Beloved Servant on June 24, 2009, 04:22:10 AM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRbA9iVKm3w&feature=related
Thanks for that. I love the energy behind rejoicing about God's message.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 04:28:50 AM
Paul
Paul, truth be known, I actually like the AV's handling of the aorist in 1 Tim.2:6 . . .
1Ti 2:6 Who
gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
over the CLNT:
1Ti 2:6 Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all
(the testimony in its own eras),
and I often quote the AV rendering of 2:6 on message boards because to mose people who know nothing about the aorist, it is just too difficult to get past the "giving" part.
Quote from: Tony N on June 24, 2009, 05:17:54 AM
Quote from: trettep on June 24, 2009, 04:28:50 AM
Paul
Paul, truth be known, I actually like the AV's handling of the aorist in 1 Tim.2:6 . . .
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
over the CLNT:
1Ti 2:6 Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all
(the testimony in its own eras),
and I often quote the AV rendering of 2:6 on message boards because to mose people who know nothing about the aorist, it is just too difficult to get past the "giving" part.
Tony, that is a good point. I usually find a trusted source and stick to it. I used to use the CLV alot and it wasn't really until the discussion we had in the works thread where I noticed that verse was quoted as it was. I never thought to look at the next chapter at verse 6:1 and 6:2 of Romans to see that the same understanding was presented. So what I'm saying is that I may have judged the CLV to quickly because it was at that point that I ceased to trust it. But I will study the topic further but since the link you posted and looking at that in the context of the next chapter verses I can only conclude that I made an error in my judgement at this point.
Paul
I need a little help on what 'aorist' actually means. (never seen the word outside this thread)
First a quote from Merriam-Webster
QuoteMain Entry:ao£rist
Pronunciation:***r*st, *a(a)r-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Late Latin & Greek; Late Latin aoristos, from Greek, from aoristos undefined, from a- 2a- + horistos definable, from horizein to define * more at HORIZON
: a set or one of a set of inflectional forms of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness or incompleteness, duration, or repetition and typically without reference to its position in time but sometimes (as in the indicative mood in Greek and Sanskrit) with reference to past time — used first in Greek grammar and later in the grammar of Sanskrit and various other languages
If I understand the above correctly the abounding of grace can have stopped. Still goes on. Will restart again. etc.
http://www.dutchgrammar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=923
Read first message only. What mentioned tense(s) do fit best?
Just my personal feeling I can't really prove with verses: "simple/perfect past future tense"
My reasoning is this. Since the law entered sin increased. Somehow it think sin is still increasing or at least is bigger than when that verse was spoken/written down. Or Grace stopped abounding at that time it would mean there is not enough Grace to keep us out of hell to put it simple.
So that would mean Grace is still abounding. Another take on this is that grace stopped abounding but when it abounded it anounded enough to overcome all increase in sin that there will be in the future.
On topic: "What mentioned tense(s) do fit best?"
WW
Here is a pic of the aorist and 2nd aorist of Romans 5:20
(http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/Tony1Pass1/Rom5_20_Aorist.jpg)
And the CLNT to the right.
Grace timelessly superexceeds. There are no time contraints on grace. It is not a done deal in the past but has superexceeding since Paul wrote that.
Here's a better picture:
If you go here:
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/Tony1Pass1/Rom5_20_Aorist.jpg?t=1245871222 (http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/Tony1Pass1/Rom5_20_Aorist.jpg?t=1245871222)
Thanks for the pics. I have ISA installed. To be honest what I read is to vague to draw any conclusions on.
For me as a none translating professional.
The word that possibly sets me on the wrong foot is over-exceeds.
Why not just exceed to stay in line with teh amount of sin as it increases. 1% more sin. 1% more grace.
For me over-exceeds is more like 1% more sin 1000% more grace. Sin kept expanding. Grace not. Today sin has expanded 800% so the covering of grace is still enough.
As said just guesswork. Or better said a learning point. Certainly not picking sides because frankly I don't have a clue how exactly UI should read it.
The only thing I'm sure of is that the verse says that the max amount of sin (past/present/future) is covered.
Unlike other versions, the significant advantage of the Concordant Literal is that, whatever the verb tense is, it is given a mark to indicate it. I think the aorist is called "Fact-State" by Knoch. Tony would know. It's a little line follwed by a zero in the upper half of the letter line. Other versions do whatever they will for the aorist and, since it's another tense used to represent it in English, whatever it is, you won't know the actual underlying tense. Only the CLV indicates the verb tenses!
I do wish they'd use much more the three little lines that represent there's a plural in the original. Like when John says you have no need for any man to teach you, "you" is plural. He's not talking to the individual believer. Or, Co 1:26 "...Christ among you, the expectation of (the) glory" (a little iota or dot in the upper half of the letter line indicates "glory" has a definate article) is how CLV renders it, though "you" is plural and their little three line symbol would be better than "among" for "in" for reasons not to enumerate now. Or when speaking of our warfare and commanding us to put on "the whole armor of God," or, ""Put on the panoply of God..." (CLV) it is using "you" and "your" as if singular. The little three line thingy would help. The passage (Ep 6:10ff) does begin with the plural "brethren" but it is not a sustained observation for most that the directive is to the local gathering, not isolated individuals. AV (King James) does use the plural "ye" in this portion, but hardly anyone notices it. Everybody has heard over and over again the nonbiblical phrase "personal salvation" introduced by early 20th Century revivalists, so that is what they think. Not: "ye all have been made to drink of one Spirit, so are one body in the Lord." Evangelism today means making individual converts rather than a gift to the Church. I digress; and, well, I shouldn't point out failures of the CLV. They are so much less than other versions.
The indication of whether it is generic or specific in the original by the use of a definite article or not doesn't always work well in English. CLV uses a little dot or boldface article to indicate its presence in the Greek. If there is no article it is not in the English or the article used is lightfaced to show its absence in the original. Other versions ignore the truth to make it readable. Sometimes it is very important. The absence of the article in the beginning of Hebrews affects the understanding of the entire book. "...God...speaks to us in a Son..." If the article was there in the Greek it would be referring to the historical Son Jesus. As it stands, it is generic, the category of Sonship or "Son-wise." It makes Hebrews a much deeper, inward, and more experiential read.
reFORMer, just the word Sonship makes my heart beat all over my chest!
Quote from: reFORMer on June 25, 2009, 04:50:39 AM
Unlike other versions, the significant advantage of the Concordant Literal is that, whatever the verb tense is, it is given a mark to indicate it. I think the aorist is called "Fact-State" by Knoch. Tony would know. It's a little line follwed by a zero in the upper half of the letter line. Other versions do whatever they will for the aorist and, since it's another tense used to represent it in English, whatever it is, you won't know the actual underlying tense. Only the CLV indicates the verb tenses!
I do wish they'd use much more the three little lines that represent there's a plural in the original. Like when John says you have no need for any man to teach you, "you" is plural. He's not talking to the individual believer. Or, Co 1:26 "...Christ among you, the expectation of (the) glory" (a little iota or dot in the upper half of the letter line indicates "glory" has a definate article) is how CLV renders it, though "you" is plural and their little three line symbol would be better than "among" for "in" for reasons not to enumerate now. Or when speaking of our warfare and commanding us to put on "the whole armor of God," or, ""Put on the panoply of God..." (CLV) it is using "you" and "your" as if singular. The little three line thingy would help. The passage (Ep 6:10ff) does begin with the plural "brethren" but it is not a sustained observation for most that the directive is to the local gathering, not isolated individuals. AV (King James) does use the plural "ye" in this portion, but hardly anyone notices it. Everybody has heard over and over again the nonbiblical phrase "personal salvation" introduced by early 20th Century revivalists, so that is what they think. Not: "ye all have been made to drink of one Spirit, so are one body in the Lord." Evangelism today means making individual converts rather than a gift to the Church. I digress; and, well, I shouldn't point out failures of the CLV. They are so much less than other versions.
The indication of whether it is generic or specific in the original by the use of a definite article or not doesn't always work well in English. CLV uses a little dot or boldface article to indicate its presence in the Greek. If there is no article it is not in the English or the article used is lightfaced to show its absence in the original. Other versions ignore the truth to make it readable. Sometimes it is very important. The absence of the article in the beginning of Hebrews affects the understanding of the entire book. "...God...speaks to us in a Son..." If the article was there in the Greek it would be referring to the historical Son Jesus. As it stands, it is generic, the category of Sonship or "Son-wise." It makes Hebrews a much deeper, inward, and more experiential read.
reFORMer,
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.
The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the
FACT FORMS: Fact forms are
indefinite as to time.
State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.
FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.
Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative
not.
In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a
wife? Do
not
seek to be
loosed.
You have been loosed from a
wife? Do
not
seek a
wife.Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.
Tony
Quote from: Tony N on June 25, 2009, 03:24:36 PM
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.
The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the
FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.
State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.
FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.
Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.
In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.
Another day, another thing learned... :thumbsup:
I have CLV only in electronic format. One in e-Sword and the other in ISA2.
I never noticed the little 'signs' in ISA2.
Is it possible that you post some information on teh exact use of the signs in ISA2?
(or another electronic version)
Thanks
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 25, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Tony N on June 25, 2009, 03:24:36 PM
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.
The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the
FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.
State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.
FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.
Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.
In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.
Another day, another thing learned... :thumbsup:
I have CLV only in electronic format. One in e-Sword and the other in ISA2.
I never noticed the little 'signs' in ISA2.
Is it possible that you post some information on teh exact use of the signs in ISA2?
(or another electronic version)
Thanks
I'm the same way. I have ISA2 and E-Sword and both have the CLV but since I use mostly E-Sword, I had to go over to the ISA2 to see the things reformer was talking about. That is good info.
Paul
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 25, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Tony N on June 25, 2009, 03:24:36 PM
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.
The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the
FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.
State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.
FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.
Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.
In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.
Another day, another thing learned... :thumbsup:
I have CLV only in electronic format. One in e-Sword and the other in ISA2.
I never noticed the little 'signs' in ISA2.
Is it possible that you post some information on teh exact use of the signs in ISA2?
(or another electronic version)
Thanks
I can't get the new version of e-sword to work with the plugins on my win 2k professional computer. I do have ISA2 on the computer...
The old version worked fine, but I wanted to get some of the newer plugins, which wouldn't work with the older version.
Quote from: Doc on June 25, 2009, 10:23:21 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 25, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
I can't get the new version of e-sword to work with the plugins on my win 2k professional computer. I do have ISA2 on the computer...
The old version worked fine, but I wanted to get some of the newer plugins, which wouldn't work with the older version.
First of all e-Sword doesn't display the symbols Tony mentioned.
QuoteMinimal system requirements include:
Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, XP, or Vista
So it should work....
Any specific errors?
Is your w2k fully up-to-date?
Haven't tried it myself because I hate online stuff: http://live.e-sword.net/
http://e-sword.net/feedback.html
Quote from: Doc on June 25, 2009, 10:23:21 PM
I can't get the new version of e-sword to work with the plugins on my win 2k professional computer. I do have ISA2 on the computer...
The old version worked fine, but I wanted to get some of the newer plugins, which wouldn't work with the older version.
Go here:
http://e-sword.net/extras.html (http://e-sword.net/extras.html)
And go to the bottom of the page and snag this conversion utility:
e-Sword User Module Conversion Utility v9.0.3
You have to download all their bibles etc. all over again because they will work with the new esword. The Bibles etc. of older esword versions will not work with the new version.
Tony I don't think that's the solution because:
Quotebut I wanted to get some of the newer plugins, which wouldn't work with the older version.
Sounds like he already has plugins with an extention ending with an x. (= v9)
Doc,
Does the program install?
Does KJV, that comes with the main download, show up?
A "CLNT refuted" article: http://www.1john57.com/literalerror.htm
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 27, 2009, 01:33:41 PM
A "CLNT refuted" article: http://www.1john57.com/literalerror.htm
The CLNT defended:
http://saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html (http://saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableOne.html)
http://saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableTwo.html (http://saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableTwo.html)
http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableThree.html (http://www.saviourofall.org/opposers/HeweyCLNTReliableThree.html)
Tony,
Please answer reply 98 if you wish.
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 28, 2009, 04:37:33 AM
Tony,
Please answer reply 98 if you wish.
I don't know where 98 is. Can you copy and paste the reply of 98 here?
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 25, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Tony N on June 25, 2009, 03:24:36 PM
I too which the CLNT used more triple horizontal lines showing more plural words.
The Fact-State verb form is an aorist. In the "Instructions for Use" pages 608,609 it is stated for the
FACT FORMS: Fact forms are indefinite as to time.
State Forms:
STATE or complete forms give the state resulting from an action.
FACT-STATE Forms:
Certain special verbs, because of their meaning, are a combined form, being both a FACT and a STATE.
Another nice thing about the CLNT is you can tell if something is absolutely not or relatively not by the use of a light faced "t" on the end of not. If light fact it is a relative not.
In 1 Corinthians 7:27 it is written:
You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.
You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Paul is not laying down a commandment like Moses and so does not say you must absolutely NOT seek to be loosed.
Another day, another thing learned... :thumbsup:
I have CLV only in electronic format. One in e-Sword and the other in ISA2.
I never noticed the little 'signs' in ISA2.
Is it possible that you post some information on teh exact use of the signs in ISA2?
(or another electronic version)
Thanks
The Concordant is sooo intricate in it's little hints of stuff in the original languages that anyone considering buying a copy really needs to spend an hour or two getting some kind of idea of what those symbols are that are used throughout the translation, before even trying to read through the Concordant New Testament. Some people will look at something in the HTML version of the Concordant online and will think about a few controversial passages where they have a polarized opinion about not only a doctrine but which passages in their minds couldn't possibly be talking about anything other than their certain doctrine, and think "uh...bad translation!!" partly because they're not often aware of all of the additional features in an actual Concordant Literal New Testament that'll tell you what's in the Greek text. Additionally, the Concordant for me reformulated certain perspectives on which Scriptures that I actually now see it more clearly in than I did ever before, though I've had adjustments along the way of which promises of the Word covered such and such. One of the things that I love about the Concordant is that it's as doctrinally neutral as they could possibly make it.
For instance, I've known the Concordant crowd to predominantly be cessationist, dispensational premillenialist, pre-trib rapture, etc. Yet, the Concordant was one of the translations that helped to convince me of Postmillenialism in it's handling of things in Paul and John's Revelation. My background prior to seeing UR is "Word of Faith" and if the Concordant New Testament were more well known in Word of Faith circles, the KJV would likely be abandoned in favor of it. Seriously!! That translation's extremely Pentecostal/Charismatic. And I know that there were no attempts made at making it that way, but they were simply doing their best to report the facts of the original languages with the attitude of just letting the chips fall wherever they may! One of the first few times I was reading through it, I was like "whoah!!! we've been saying that for years and didn't even know such and such a passage [in our most used translations] was obscuring our being able to [really] share that from there as well because of how the mainstream translations do something a little different." It's still possible to be Trinitarian and quite a few other things that aren't necessarily uniformly the views of everyone in the Concordant Crowd. Various things are established sooo much more clearly by some passages, while previously held "proof texts" may have gotten "sacrificed" along the way and it's a matter of working out your own salvation with fear and trembling and getting back to what the book actually has to say for a while and being humble and willing to be corrected about this or that. And often, what it'll wind up being is either a modification of your previous views, if they had any Biblical basis whatsoever previously, or you wind up swapping the passages you're basing your understanding on in favor of passages that more clearly establish such and such in the Greek.
In other words, if you're going to insist on a perspective of either ET or annihilationism, then you're going to be able to do it with the Concordant New Testament, but it won't be the traditional cliche passages like Matthew 25, 2Thessalonians 1, etc. It would be a matter of how you chose to take other things in the translation either deliberately or your current level of light/darkness on the subject as the Holy Spirit is working His Written Word into your life. Fundamentalists don't seem to get that about better translations. What ought to matter is what the Word actually says, rather than the traditions received from your fathers -- no matter which of them is being brought into question by better translation work! And if it's a valid perspective, or even remotely valid, then you're likely going to wind up basing it on other passages that are more accurately translated to allow lesser wiggle room to anybody but the Holy Spirit totally yanking the scales from the eyes. A mistranslation or calling into question the translation of a traditionally accepted way of taking a passage is not inherently automatically a death blow to any doctrine, or not to very many in the Body of Christ. What matters is what all of the Word has to say, and often with the more literal translations you're going to discover promises, provisions, or even threatenings, judgments, punishments, etc., that you never even knew where in there! I'm growing more and more fond of the Concordant New Testament, but I'm Trinitarian, perhaps leaning towards being a PARTIAL preterist, though still a futurist about many aspects of Bible prophecy, as well as a believer in some passages that are being fulfilled right now -- I'm Postmillenialist, Word of Faith, UR, and hold to a few other things that it's not been time to even mention by name as to what the theologians would call that and the Concordant Literal New Testament isn't the least bit uncomfortable to me at all. It simply challenged me, when I first got my hands on the translation, about what Scriptures I was basing things on.
Realistically, a good translation is simply going to do that rather than shape doctrine overtly. You're wanting a good translation that'll make you fast, pray, read the Word, and meditate, meditate, meditate, meditate, MEDITATE!! on it until you're more honest with the Holy Spirit within you as to why you believe what you believe rather than that's how you were raised, what you were previously taught, or something you've simply held to because of the beliefs of someone you've respected highly has believed such and such, and after all, they're devoted to the Word!! Some areas of insight in the Word aren't a matter of this person's right and this person's wrong, but will wind up being a matter of that particular person's calling that the Holy Spirit is awakening them to. There is such a thing as sound doctrine in the Scriptures and the correct partitioning of the Word of Truth, so that you'll be fully equipped for any need whatsoever that could possibly ever come along. However, [though you are to build your life entirely on God's Written Word,] you can't build your life TOTALLY on the Word and have nothing but a head full of doctrine that's simply figured out where all of the chess pieces fit. There will be insights that'll be a matter of where all of the chess pieces fit where your own particular life is concerned -- while at the same time, being in absolutely zero violation of any major New Testament Christian doctrines. Nobody's called to deny the Blood, the Holy Spirit at work supernaturally in the lives of those who obey Him, or to deny the resurrection, etc. There is very clear heresy that the KJV would call "damnable heresy." However, if the Word's more than a profession and is genuinely a lifestyle, there will be insights that are 100% true that simply apply such and such a truth to your particular overcoming lifestyle and may sound ODD to either anybody else or others of other streams of emphasis and application of the Word to the areas that they themselves face on a daily basis.
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 26, 2009, 04:21:54 PM
Tony I don't think that's the solution because:
Quotebut I wanted to get some of the newer plugins, which wouldn't work with the older version.
Sounds like he already has plugins with an extention ending with an x. (= v9)
Doc,
Does the program install?
Does KJV, that comes with the main download, show up?
The program installs and the included KJV shows up, but none of the plugins will work when installed. I already unfortunately deleted the old version of e-sword, so Tony's conversion fix won't work for me. It could be that I hadn't done the most recent update, or that I hadn't restarted yet. I'll do that and try again.
Another thing I like about the CLV is that it eliminates many, (though not all) of the questionable additions to scripture. I have a hard copy on order.
Quote from: Doc on June 30, 2009, 10:26:36 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on June 26, 2009, 04:21:54 PM
Tony I don't think that's the solution because:
Quotebut I wanted to get some of the newer plugins, which wouldn't work with the older version.
Sounds like he already has plugins with an extention ending with an x. (= v9)
Doc,
Does the program install?
Does KJV, that comes with the main download, show up?
The program installs and the included KJV shows up, but none of the plugins will work when installed. I already unfortunately deleted the old version of e-sword, so Tony's conversion fix won't work for me. It could be that I hadn't done the most recent update, or that I hadn't restarted yet. I'll do that and try again.
Tony's conversion fix converts from version 8 to version 9. Not the otherway around.
Pre version 9 modules do NOT work in version 9. ALL Bibles, comentaries etc must have an extention ending on a x.
.bblx for example
So I want to suggest (re)installing v9 and download some stuff from the e-Sword site. It's all v9 compatible.
Anyway here you can download version 8.04: https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707627676/16859cf243523cf92d829471ec597e8d (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707627676/16859cf243523cf92d829471ec597e8d)
Here 1.5 GB worth of v8 Bibles, maps, commentaries, etc:
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707635856/34898c52133a3557894c9ad80dc2f31c (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707635856/34898c52133a3557894c9ad80dc2f31c)
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707635930/09d5d1b4338f98b79ce361eb637cdf60 (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707635930/09d5d1b4338f98b79ce361eb637cdf60)
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707636060/f3a2dce9f755b9f86c41af155fb81d2f (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707636060/f3a2dce9f755b9f86c41af155fb81d2f)
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707636190/93362f582646f11f600d1e1621d9521c (https://rcpt.yousendit.com/707636190/93362f582646f11f600d1e1621d9521c)