The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Malista;
Definition
especially, chiefly, most of all, above all
Translated Words
KJV (12) - chiefly, 2; especially, 4; most of all, 1; specially, 5;
NAS (12) - especially
When I shared UR with a pastor in the past, part of his argument for ET was along the lines of, "it's only those that are saved...see this scripture? Jesus, Savior, especially of those that believe"? Huh? :mshock:
Okay.
So, along those same lines how do you guys and gals like this? See if you can follow the logic, or if this looks dishonest to you. Caution; don't everybody run out and buy a ISV translation all at once...you're likely to hurt each other :wink1:
WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF THE HOLY BIBLE:
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD VERSION
Editor's Note: This response answers a reader's question concerning the ISV's rendering of the Greek superlative adverb μάλιστα, not merely how this adverb is rendered in 1 Timothy 4:10 .
A question about 1 Tim. 4:10 — Q: Why did you choose to render μάλιστα as "that is," rather than "especially"? You seem to have rendered it "especially" in several other contexts,
A: Actually, we rendered μάλιστα (the superlative neuter plural of the adverb μάλα, which means "very much") as "especially" in EVERY occurrence in the ISV NT, except for 1 Timothy 4:10. See the list below. The word connotes the highest point in the extent of something, distinguishing its object apart from other things being discussed in the context, and is often rendered "most of all", "above all", or "chiefly", not just "especially".
Q: So far I've found no other translation nor any lexical source that lists "that is" or "specifically" or anything of that sort as an alternate rendering.
A: On a layman's level, you'll see this nuance in the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon. See also page 252 of the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT under its listing for μάλιστα: "μάλιστα adverb (superlative of the adverb μάλα [very much, exceedingly]); as the highest point in the extent of something most of all, especially, above all (AC 20.38)" [Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library (252). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.] See also Louw/Nida's Lexicon under entry 78.7: "μάλιστα: a very high point on a scale of extent—'very much, especially, particularly, exceptionally.' 'they were especially sad at the words he had spoken' Ac 20.38."
Q: I realize the "usual" translation invites a "universalist" interpretation,
A: Does it? We don't think so. The word μάλιστα is singling out "those who believe" (Greek "πιστῶν") as the specific portion of "all men". He is the savior of all humanity, the Apostle is saying, but then he modifies the term "all humanity" by adding a modifier, which is that Jesus is the savior to the benefit of a "very high point on a scale of extent" — in other words, to the benefit of a SUBSET of "all men". That subset is the group that believes. Given the narrowness of the scale of intent demonstrated by this superlative adverb, we didn't feel that using the adverb "especially" suited the context of μάλιστα especially well (uh, pardon the pun...). So we used "that is" instead.
Q: But doesn't the choice you've made amount to "taking sides" theologically?
A: Quite the opposite. Since we don't think μάλιστα implies any universalism, but rather is specifically REFUTING universalism (since Jesus is called the savior of those who believe[!] and not just of all humanity), we're attempting to remove the taking sides that takes place if one renders μάλιστα as "especially" in 1 Timothy 4:10. Also, Paul's use of μάλιστα is taking sides! He's saying that Jesus is the savior of a specific subset of "all humanity" (πάντων ἀνθρώπων), that is, he's the savior of "believers" (πιστῶν).
:sigh:
I'm especially glad there's a hell for people like this!
(Is it because of my age that I was instructed to never use "especially," that the proper word is "specially?")
Yeah, I've seen a new edition of Strong's with a white and blue cover, or something like that, that's a reaction to Universalists. If I'd had the money at the time, I'd of hogged copies of the older beige version so that I could more easily show people the hypocrisy.
Quote from: reFORMer on February 09, 2009, 08:34:02 AM
I'm especially glad there's a hell for people like this!
:pointlaugh:
Quote from: martincisneros on February 09, 2009, 09:21:11 AM
Yeah, I've seen a new edition of Strong's with a white and blue cover, or something like that, that's a reaction to Universalists. If I'd had the money at the time, I'd of hogged copies of the older beige version so that I could more easily show people the hypocrisy.
Seriously? I need to look for that :pitiful:
QuoteA: Quite the opposite. Since we don't think μάλιστα implies any universalism, but rather is specifically REFUTING universalism (since Jesus is called the savior of those who believe[!] and not just of all humanity), we're attempting to remove the taking sides that takes place if one renders μάλιστα as "especially" in 1 Timothy 4:10. Also, Paul's use of μάλιστα is taking sides! He's saying that Jesus is the savior of a specific subset of "all humanity" (πάντων ἀνθρώπων), that is, he's the savior of "believers" (πιστῶν).
So they used "that is" because "specially/especially" leaves a possible interpretation for UR. That isn't taking sides?
Anyway I would like to read some article about the Greek word.
Or an explanation that shows that even with "that is" the UR meaning still stands.
Quote1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
It seems to contradict the other verse; and that's not possible.
How is that verse translated jabcat?
Can that verse in anyway been read as 'only the believers' when read in context.
Besides the argument that those that don't believe will at some time believe and then wil be saved anyway.
Knock knock, me again.
Jabcat, how are the 2 verses translated in your famous CB?
QuoteOur position is that this fine distinction should come out in a commentary series. It's too nuanced to explain in a footnote.
I wonder what that really means.
Is it difficult to translate this verse and keep the original meaning?
Or is it difficult to translate out UR so it needs extra explaining it's not UR?
:cloud9: Sad but not surprising. Wonder how much else they tampered with, to keep it from saying what it actually says?
Quote from: Cardinal on February 09, 2009, 03:25:46 PM
:cloud9: Sad but not surprising. Wonder how much else they tampered with, to keep it from saying what it actually says?
They clearly are ETs that hate UR.
http://isv.org/catacombs/on_hell.htm
Of course they are taking sides.
QuoteAlso, Paul's use of μάλιστα is taking sides! He's saying that Jesus is the savior of a specific subset of "all humanity" (πάντων ἀνθρώπων), that is, he's the savior of "believers" (πιστῶν).
Typical rewriting of scripture.
It's the same turd in a different wrapper.
Ga 6:10 Consequently, then, as we have occasion, we are working toward the good of all, yet specially toward the family of faith.
And of course then, we are only to do good to those who believe.
I also see a positive side to the change in translation and the new Strongs Martin mentioned.
Those that oppose UR also seem to read the UR message in the English translations. Therefore they need to get pro UR verses tweaked.
:sigh:
It's odd how some people go to such great lengths trying to snuff out the good news.
Sometimes I wish God would just reach down with a humoungous hand and pick up these people :mshock: and put them in the palm of his hand and just look at them and say "what are you doing?! why are you trying to snuff out my good news??"
I can't help it. I really do wish God would do stuff like that sometimes... just to FREAK people out.
oooo better be careful what I wish for..
*runs and hides* :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 09, 2009, 03:03:30 PM
Knock knock, me again.
Jabcat, how are the 2 verses translated in your famous CB?
QuoteOur position is that this fine distinction should come out in a commentary series. It's too nuanced to explain in a footnote.
I wonder what that really means.
Is it difficult to translate this verse and keep the original meaning?
Or is it difficult to translate out UR so it needs extra explaining it's not UR?
Unfortunate news on this. The Christian Bible, IMO, sounds even worse. It states ""we have come to always put our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all kinds of humans, that is, of the Believers." ....
On the other hand, here's what it looks like in the Greek interlinear....
zao hos emi sOtEr pas anthrOpos malista pistos
who is Savior of-all humans ratherest of believing ones
especially
Maybe they get the variation from "ratherest"....as in, "rather (that is), those that believe". Now, where "ratherest" comes from, I'm not sure...I certainly don't see that in any definitions anywhere...and supposedly the translators of the Christian Bible were changed from what they saw scripture actually saying, not putting their own slant on it...HOWEVER, IMO, it would be impossible for a human being to not apply some of their own bias/filter/understanding in a translation, unless it were something God miraculously wrote as He did the originals...then that wouldn't be a translation at all, would it? That would be a tran
scription..
If you don't believe you simply are unsaved.
I think that's also the view of UR.
"testified in due time" and similar verses.
Many think God is a fable to put it mildly. The don't believe He exist.
You probably don't believe in pink flying elephants. But you will if you personally see them.
I think it's the same with the unbelievers. When they see God they not only believe but they simply know.
And then they suddenly fit in that verse.
That's my opinion. Not very scholary :laughing7:
So a little feedback please. Some verses to support your view would be cool.
So you're saying, the difference between "are" and "will be", right?
Yep.
That is even common among many ETs.
You are sorta born unsaved.
But when you turn to Jesus you are saved.
The main question is how long do you have to turn to Jesus.
ETs say until the moment you die.
I say/ask, billions of years after you died.
Few idea's that support that thought imo:
a] Those that live before Jesus was born can never have turned to Him.
b] Many that lived after Jesus was born truely didn't hear of Him.
The only question I have about that is: what about those who heard of Jesus. Who could have studied the Bible. But didn't.
Then we have the parable of the lost sheep.
Or the one of the son that left home and after years returned. The son (=we) led a wicked life but the father (=God/Jesus) almost got an heart attack from happines because the son returned (from sin)
Would the father be less happy if the son returned after 20 (=after death) years instead of 10 (=during life)
But all of that is just my interpretation. I can make things fit. Just like ETs. But that doesn't make it right....
Perhaps we have to agree this verse isn't direct/clear enough to prove anything on it's own?
Especially Believers....From Hope Beyond Hell
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach. (1Ti. 4:9-10) This must be a very important passage to warrant such a powerful introduction and closing. Understand the importance of this critical passage. If God is the Savior exclusively of those who believe during their earthly existence, as our tradition teaches, why is this passage saying something different? The difference between "exclusively" and "especially" is significant; to interchange these two concepts is to contradict Scripture.
What does "especially of those who believe" mean? Christ saves us from our sinful nature and transforms us into His image (Ga. 4:19) so we may shine as lights in the world (Mt. 5:13-16). Thus, believers are "especially" saved because they have been justified by faith, and are presently working out their salvation as God empowers them (Ph. 2:13).
None of this changes the fact that God is still the Savior of those who do not yet believe. Once His righteous, just, and purpose-driven judgments have run their course, death will be destroyed, all will be made alive, and all will be subjected to Christ. Then God will be all in all (1Co. 15:22-28). He is, in an ultimate sense, the Savior of all men, (unbelievers and believers) but especially, at present, of believers. The key word is malista, translated "especially." Could it also mean "exclusively"? The only way to know is to observe how it is used in Scripture. It occurs 12 times [8 listed for brevity]. As you read the references below, try substituting the word "exclusively" and see how it fits. [I HAVE ALSO ADDED "THAT IS"]
They wept and fell on Paul's neck sorrowing most of all [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] for the words which he spoke (Ac.20:38).
I have brought him out before you, and especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] before you (Ac. 25:24-27).
Let us do good to all, especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] to those who are of faith (Ga. 6:9-10).
All the saints greet you, but especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] those who are of Caesar's household (Ph. 4:20-23).
There are many...deceivers, especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] those of the circumcision...(Tit. 1:10-11).
Bring the cloak and the books...especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] the parchments. (2 Ti. 4:13)
Reserve...for the day of judgment, and especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] those who walk according to the flesh (2Pe. 2:9-11).
Could you accurately substitute "exclusively" for "especially" in [ALL] these passages? [Was it consistent?] If you could not here, on what grammatical or contextual grounds can you do it in 1Ti. 4:10 God... is the Savior of all men, especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] of those who believe. (1Ti. 4:10)? This text, rightly understood in light of the other proclamations in this section and the evidence presented elsewhere, offers solid ground to believe what it says. God is the Savior of "all men," especially (and not exclusively) of those who believe. Let us command and teach this!
Quote from: jabcat on February 10, 2009, 04:31:52 AM
Especially Believers....From Hope Beyond Hell
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach. (1Ti. 4:9-10) This must be a very important passage to warrant such a powerful introduction and closing. Understand the importance of this critical passage. If God is the Savior exclusively of those who believe during their earthly existence, as our tradition teaches, why is this passage saying something different? The difference between "exclusively" and "especially" is significant; to interchange these two concepts is to contradict Scripture.
I would fully agree with that if God inspired the translation you are looking at. But He didn't. So now the questions are:
- Is the translation correct?
- Does it matter for UR?
QuoteWhat does "especially of those who believe" mean? Christ saves us from our sinful nature and transforms us into His image (Ga. 4:19) so we may shine as lights in the world (Mt. 5:13-16). Thus, believers are "especially" saved because they have been justified by faith,
That is similar to what I wrote.
Quoteand are presently working out their salvation as God empowers them (Ph. 2:13).
When the working out stops isn't mentioned.
QuoteNone of this changes the fact that God is still the Savior of those who do not yet believe.
True. But at some point of time He starts judging be cause He's also a judge. He can't be a judge when He's never in the courtroom..
QuoteThey wept and fell on Paul's neck sorrowing most of all [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] for the words which he spoke (Ac.20:38).
Both makes sense to me.
QuoteI have brought him out before you, and especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] before you (Ac. 25:24-27).
The exclusively sounds more logical to me
QuoteLet us do good to all, especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] to those who are of faith (Ga. 6:9-10).
Especially fits best.
QuoteAll the saints greet you, but especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] those who are of Caesar's household (Ph. 4:20-23).
I don't understand that verse because Ceasar is surrounded by pagans.
QuoteThere are many...deceivers, especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] those of the circumcision...(Tit. 1:10-11).
Especially fits best. My feeling says :including" would be even better.
QuoteBring the cloak and the books...especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] the parchments. (2 Ti. 4:13)
Especially
QuoteReserve...for the day of judgment, and especially [EXCLUSIVELY/THAT IS] those who walk according to the flesh (2Pe. 2:9-11).
Are the rightous present during judgement?
I just looked in the Companion Guide to The Christian Bible (1991) at the 12 times malista is used in the NT. 11 times they translate it as especially....Acts 20:38 "especially pained by the word"; Acts 25:26 "especially before you, King Agrippa"; Acts 26:3 "especially since your are knowledgeable"; Gal. 6:10 "yet especially for the household of the Faith"; Phi. 4:22 "especially those who belong to Caesar's household"; I Tim. 5:8 "especially his household, has disowned the Faith"; I Tim 5:17 "especially those who are continually laboring"; 2 Tim. 4:13 "especially the parchments"; Titus 1:10 "especially the ones who belong to those who have"; Phlm. 1:16 "as a dearly loved brother, especially to me"; 2 Pet. 2:10 "and especially those who are going after the flesh"; And drum roll please...#12 I Tim. 4:10 "who is the Savior of all kinds of humans, that is those that believe".....
Even though I really like this translation in general, this just doesn't strike me as either totally accurate and/or without human filter/bias. Why that ONE verse, out of all 12, if it's not based on someone's particular belief system? :dontknow:. It may be correct, but I got'ta wonder....I can see they might do this, since they translate "all men" as "all kinds of humans". That sort of then flows together with "that is"...sort of....but then where does the "all kinds of humans" come from, if also not from a personal/particular belief system?
An interesting thing to do is to go to Biblegateway and look at the verse. Out of 20 English translations, by far the translation is "especially", and a time or two "mostly" or "most of all".
A couple of translations malista caught my attention :happygrin:.
One for its interesting way of saying it...the New International Reader's Version says "Here is the saying. We have put our hope in the living God. He is the Savior of all people. Most of all he is the Savior of those who believe." Hmmm...cool.
The other one is just a head shaker for me....the World Wide English version puts it like this, "That is why we work hard and put up with troubles. We trust the living God who came to save all peoples. He makes a way for those who believe on Him". Huh? :mshock: That is so far away from the literal Greek, why bother? Or at least just say, "alright, here's the way we believe it"...
Quote from: jabcat on February 10, 2009, 10:48:48 AM
Even though I really like this translation in general, this just doesn't strike me as either totally accurate and/or without human filter/bias. Why that ONE verse, out of all 12, if it's not based on someone's particular belief system?
Perhaps because of the sentance structure in the original Greek.
On their website they write that most translations are done with the rules of classical Greek. That's wrong because the koine Greek they used has other rules. Perhaps that's why many Bibles translate especially.
Just a thought.
That is a good thought, one that I hadn't had. Wonder how one would be able to view a copy of the Koine? Now I'm off on another venture...that piques my interest. :thumbsup:
Did you know this? From a Catholic website; "Protestants claim an ownership of our book and claim to be responsible for its translation into the tongue of the people, but this is an error, two errors; the Bible is ours, and Catholics were translating it into the language of the people before Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, et al. were born.." There, take that! And get your hands off their Bible :laughing7:.
Quote from: jabcat on February 10, 2009, 11:33:01 AM
That is a good thought, one that I hadn't had. Wonder how one would be able to view a copy of the Koine? Now I'm off on another venture...that piques my interest. :thumbsup:
http://www.greekbiblestudy.org/gnt/main.do
http://www.thechan.com/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,9/Itemid,6/
http://www.biblicalgreek.org/software/
Etc: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=koine+greek+NT+&as_epq=e+sword&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
/EDIT
I think you will like:
Septuagint LXX Greek Old Testament with Strong's Numbers and complete parsing information.
Septuagint LXX Greek Old Testament in transliteration format.
Quote from: jabcat on February 10, 2009, 11:44:27 AM
Did you know this? From a Catholic website; "Protestants claim an ownership of our book and claim to be responsible for its translation into the tongue of the people, but this is an error, two errors; the Bible is ours, and Catholics were translating it into the language of the people before Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, et al. were born.." There, take that! And get your hands off their Bible :laughing7:.
RCC kept the Bible 'hidden' from most people up until 40-50 years ago.
All in Latin. Kids at school studied from the Catechism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism
A popified "bible" :laughing7:
Quote from: jabcat on February 10, 2009, 11:44:27 AM
Did you know this? From a Catholic website; "Protestants claim an ownership of our book and claim to be responsible for its translation into the tongue of the people, but this is an error, two errors; the Bible is ours, and Catholics were translating it into the language of the people before Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, et al. were born.." There, take that! And get your hands off their Bible :laughing7:.
Catholicism truly astounds me.
It's just... there is SO much..and it's all so blatant...I... I just...:msealed:
..have no words.
Know what I mean? :mshock:
i appreciate the vulgate:
in hoc enim laboramus et maledicimur quia speravimus in
Deum vivum qui est salvator omnium hominum maxime fidelium
the living God who is savior of all humans, mostly/especially of believers
I think changing verses in this manner can effect the opposite if it's too obvious, there is a German bible, which doesn't translate savior but 'sustainer' - this seems suspect.
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially that is of those that believe.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
The verses now contradict. Unless all is limited in some way. Lets see if I can prove all to mean 100% of humanity.
John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
=> God hands over His whole creation to Jesus.
John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
=> The task of Jesus is to give eternal life to everything He received from God.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
=> The task of Jesus is to give eternal life to all things (=mankind)
=> His people are not just the Jews, believers or elect because Father gave Him everything. his=100% of creation.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
=> Jesus declares He will accomplish his mission.
=> Did Father overestimate His Son?
If yes the powers of Jesus are limited and God made a judgement error. Who calls UR hersey.....?
Shouldn't the blue words start with caps? (out of repect)
Bonus spam.
Isaiah 46:10 .... and I (=God) will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 53:10 .... and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his (=Jesus) hand.
Ezekiel 33:11 I (=God) have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:....
Pleasure of God shall be done. That means what doesn't pleasure shall not be done.
God has no pleasure in death (of the sinner)
Mmm, I'm getting a little upset those peeps twist the word. Little spark in me? :Pray:
Quote from: sven on February 10, 2009, 08:08:37 PM
I think changing verses in this manner can effect the opposite if it's too obvious, there is a German bible, which doesn't translate savior but 'sustainer' - this seems suspect.
Depends.
If it means "Jesus sustains life" then it looks fine to me...
yes, but it's obvious that they want to weak these words, the New World Translation also corrupted this verse:
For to this end we are working hard and exerting ourselves, because we have rested our hope on a living God, who is a Savior of all sorts of men, especially of faithful ones.
can I read the bible mentioned in this topic, online?
More....
John 12:47 I'm (=Jesus) not his judge: I did not come to be judge of the world but to give salvation to the world.
=> Exactly like the task given to Him by Father. Judging is used as something negative here. But the judging is not done because that's not the task Jesus got. Meaning He' saviour of all
John 17:4 I have given you glory on the earth, having done all the work which you gave me to do.
=> Jesus was sent to salvation to all the world and he completed that task
I'll stop now. It seems to be faster to just quote the whole Bible. :thumbsup:
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 10, 2009, 08:20:50 PM
Bonus spam.
Isaiah 46:10 .... and I (=God) will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 53:10 .... and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his (=Jesus) hand.
Ezekiel 33:11 I (=God) have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:....
Pleasure of God shall be done. That means what doesn't pleasure shall not be done.
God has no pleasure in death (of the sinner)
Mmm, I'm getting a little upset those peeps twist the word. Little spark in me? :Pray:
You are also assuming that God is 100% sovereign, which surprisingly, many people don't believe.
Try asking Churchianity this question: Does God get everything he wants? And then watch all the excuses come out about how God can't get everything he wants because then all would be saved. Or conversely, God doesn't want all to be saved, therefore he does get everything he wants! :BangHead:
Quote from: sven on February 10, 2009, 08:43:19 PM
yes, but it's obvious that they want to weak these words, the New World Translation also corrupted this verse:
For to this end we are working hard and exerting ourselves, because we have rested our hope on a living God, who is a Savior of all sorts of men, especially of faithful ones.
Sorts: fat/thin. all colors. all levels of faith. all nations. etc
Quotecan I read the bible mentioned in this topic, online?
Christian Bible where Jabcat quoted from: No
ISV: http://isv.org/downloads/index.htm -> Version 1.50
ISV: http://isv.org/previews/index.htm -> Incomplete beta version 1.51
V=Version. T=Translation
Quote from: legoman on February 10, 2009, 09:04:48 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 10, 2009, 08:20:50 PM
Bonus spam.
Isaiah 46:10 .... and I (=God) will do all my pleasure:
Isaiah 53:10 .... and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his (=Jesus) hand.
Ezekiel 33:11 I (=God) have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:....
Pleasure of God shall be done. That means what doesn't pleasure shall not be done.
God has no pleasure in death (of the sinner)
Mmm, I'm getting a little upset those peeps twist the word. Little spark in me? :Pray:
You are also assuming that God is 100% sovereign, which surprisingly, many people don't believe.
Try asking Churchianity this question: Does God get everything he wants? And then watch all the excuses come out about how God can't get everything he wants because then all would be saved. Or conversely, God doesn't want all to be saved, therefore he does get everything he wants! :BangHead:
Then possibly things backfire (pun intended) on the ET. God wants 95% of humanity in hell. But likely He's not powerful enough to do so. Or is that a hertical interpretation? :angel4:
Someone said something along this line earlier, but I seriously think these ISV people need their own Damascus road experience; you know, where God puts the smackdown on these guys and says "WHY ARE YOU PERSECUTING ME?"
YOU BECOME LIKE THE GOD YOU SERVE!!! Under the statute known as de heretico comburendo they burned Christians at the stake in England from the beginning of the 1400's for 200 years and England was the latecomer, it was even longer in the rest of Europe. The Roman Catholics of the Inquisition said to them that they only, "Consign to temporal flames that you may be saved from eternal flames." To know the Ave Maria, the "Our Father," or "The 10 Commandments" in English was sufficient proof of heresy. To possess parts of the Bible in English was to be a heretic. This did sometimes mean execution. At the stake, they would put the English Bible portions under the chin of the "heretic" and light them aflame. These are well documented in various records that survive, some published and cited in books I recently read by Clara H. Stuart dealing with the life of John Wycliffe and after, to about the middle of the 1500's.
Death could be the result of even association with such people as believed that after consecration the bread and wine remained, or that each predestined man is a priest and able to administer the sacraments without episcopal ordination, or that priests who live evilly hold the keys of hell rather than of heaven and that no Christian is obliged to take count of the censures of such men. Those holding these ideas were deemed worthy of death and those that showed kindness to them could be executed. These are just sample mentions of the crimes for which the Roman Church authorities tortured and killed people.
I also could get into the original 8 volumes of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, The Acts and Monuments, 6,000 pages witten in 1563 on CD's included with other wonderful material (available at www.avpublications.com (http://www.avpublications.com) ) under the title In Awe of Thy Word. Too much to go into here. Just one example: the merchant who could not read. He had framed on his wall an illuminated 10 commandments he was proud of. Too bad it was with the protestant numbering rather than the Roman. He and his family was executed.
(An additional comment to tack onto what I just posted on Roman Church history:)
I read Roman Catholic scholars and have friends in that religion. Things are not what they once were. I believe the Protestants of today commit some of the same religious crimes against God and His people that those in the Roman Church are guilty of today. It isn't easy to clarify for some how to be friends with who seems the enemy, or that "Christian" leaders are sometimes the enemy.
Too many Christians don't even know the major tenants of the Reformation of the 1500's. Because of this there is added difficulty in advancing beyond what has been, to mature as God intends for this generation of believers. While some are running to the latest "anointed preacher" my heart breaks that the Church is not on the program. It isn't even missed. People are audiences for the professional elite on stage. Their idea of "going to church," a phrase not in the Bible, is only as enablers of the "ministry" of some great man. That ministry of the members of the body of Christ one to another under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit without human headship and their continuing in fellowship, bearing one another's burdens is considered heretical to many leaders in Institutional Christianity and the Charismatic mega-churches of our day. Yet more powerful than the human family and of greater consequence, the true foundation of human society, is the Eclessia as God builds it.
Good comments all :thumbsup:. I've been unable to connect to TM from work...happens every once in awhile. Anyway, I've been thinking tonight about where I see WW in particular has been going with this; basically, that even if I Tim 4:10 were to translate more along the lines of "all kinds of men", "that is", etc. (which I doubt); there's still hundreds of verses scattered througout the whole of scriptures that either directly addresses, or alludes to God's ultimate reconciliation of all. I remembered the 600 here http://haroldlovelace.com/lovelacelist.php .... thankfully, as we know but may sometimes need to remember, it doesn't hinge on one verse. People can twist a verse here and there, but God has given more than sufficient witness in His Word, in His Spirit, and in His character...God IS Love.
Jabcat,
I don't see it as 600 verses that support UR and 1 that doesn't support UR so mathematically seen UR wins.
I say: 601 anti-UR or 601 pro-UR. If not God made a mistake when inspiring the Bible. That would mean He's not almighty.....
I have to think something from a crappy book by an architect that wrote about .... can't even remember.
He did made one good point I always try to apply.
He looks at scripture like a house.
Foundation: The really stong and clear verses.
The walls: Good verses that can be misunderstood (like the one being discussed.
Decoration: The no real use verses. Or at least very flexible meanings.
You don't build an house around decorations.
Neither do you stuff a foundation under a wall instead of building a wall on foundations.
From the site quoted by Jabcat
(http://haroldlovelace.com/list1.jpg)
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 10, 2009, 08:13:57 PM
The verses now contradict. Unless all is limited in some way. Lets see if I can prove all to mean 100% of humanity.
This is one of the issues any one faces. There are instances where ALL means a certain group, thats just a fact. So, you cannot hinge UR on the word all. We can also make an issue of context to say that ALL means only those who are IN Christ, so to be IN Christ you must have accepted Christ.
So as the arguments escalate then we get into "Every knee shall bow" and of course then that is contextualized to say that yeah, every knee bows because of that realization but because they never served God while alive it's too late.
Then we get into Gods righeousness, and of course a God can do whatever he wants, so if God makes it righteous that most of humanity remains in their lost state then who's gonna do anything about it. Our arguments down here don't change God.
on and on and on
Then we get to UR where there is still disagreement, lake of fire now, later, both even our disputes over Age bearing, literal spiritual, free will, no free will.
Whos convincing who, are we thrashing this around to convince ourself, or are we really in deep love with God so that none of that can even matter any more.
Recently I believe I have felt a glimpse of what real love is, perhaps it is emotion, perhaps not, but what I know is that this feeling has no boundries of doctrine, when I felt this it did not matter what the person I felt this over believed or what they thought, whether they agreed with me or not, none of it mattered.
I won't trade that for any book or interpretation of it. It was divine, it was pure, I don't care what book it's found in.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 11, 2009, 04:07:24 PM
This is one of the issues any one faces. There are instances where ALL means a certain group, thats just a fact. So, you cannot hinge UR on the word all. We can also make an issue of context to say that ALL means only those who are IN Christ, so to be IN Christ you must have accepted Christ.
That's why I choose not to post a 'boring' list with 'all-verses' but instead searched from proof another angle.
QuoteSo as the arguments escalate then we get into "Every knee shall bow" and of course then that is contextualized to say that yeah, every knee bows because of that realization but because they never served God while alive it's too late.
The underlying Greek word seem to be always used for genuine worship. Not for forced kneeling. But agreed people will try to prove that context shows that this one verse should be translated differently.
But I believe I/we don't need that verse at all to prove UR. To speak with that architect works it's a wall-verse.
QuoteThen we get into Gods righeousness, and of course a God can do whatever he wants, so if God makes it righteous that most of humanity remains in their lost state then who's gonna do anything about it. Our arguments down here don't change God.
That's a fact and a good fact because as I quoted God made clear He has no intention to harm (permanently)
QuoteThen we get to UR where there is still disagreement, lake of fire now, later, both even our disputes over Age bearing, literal spiritual, free will, no free will.
I have my idea's about them too. But to speak with the architect again: decoration-verses
The foundation (and walls) for all (?) people on this board are same.
QuoteWhos convincing who, are we thrashing this around to convince ourself, or are we really in deep love with God so that none of that can even matter any more.
I would say both. But the ratio of the mixture varies. Doesn't the Bible say: Seek the truth.
For me personally that's different from just saying "God is good/great/love/...."
Surely that are words God likes but it's not searching. It's an aborted search.
QuoteRecently I believe I have felt a glimpse of what real love is,
I won't trade that for any book or interpretation of it.
Now you after years of study (I just assume that) you finally experienced what you where looking for; is that the end of the search for you or do you now even want to know more of the One that gave you that experience?
Yes, I want to know more, but if I never "find" more then I am not going to feel like I've missed something.
I've found that you can find some truth in all writings, buddist, even things atheists say contain truth. The bible contains truth, but not all truth, and believing something as much as someone can believe whole heartedly doesn't make something true.
It seems to be arriving at a point where love superceeds what we can say a book says about it. We feel it, we know it, it cannot be questioned, debated or refuted and we cannot teach it to anyone. It is something that the divine gives us when it is that time for it to be.
If the bible contains the only truth then what makes that more viable than any other compiled document? There in lies the trouble, lets get out the websites, the books, the opinions, the documents and the case then is made, compiled, tweaked and explained to fit the belief. There is no inherant proof for any of it.
So, whats left? Whats left if all physcial evidence disappeared, what is left?
Selfless love, thats it, thats all thats left, the hardest most excruciating lesson anyone can learn.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 11, 2009, 06:04:43 PM
Yes, I want to know more, but if I never "find" more then I am not going to feel like I've missed something.
I've found that you can find some truth in all writings, buddist, even things atheists say contain truth. The bible contains truth, but not all truth, and believing something as much as someone can believe whole heartedly doesn't make something true.
It seems to be arriving at a point where love superceeds what we can say a book says about it. We feel it, we know it, it cannot be questioned, debated or refuted and we cannot teach it to anyone. It is something that the divine gives us when it is that time for it to be.
If the bible contains the only truth then what makes that more viable than any other compiled document? There in lies the trouble, lets get out the websites, the books, the opinions, the documents and the case then is made, compiled, tweaked and explained to fit the belief. There is no inherant proof for any of it.
So, whats left? Whats left if all physcial evidence disappeared, what is left?
Selfless love, thats it, thats all thats left, the hardest most excruciating lesson anyone can learn.
Good points Paul. I sometimes find myself pointing out to people (including reminding myself at times), that Jesus said: "
I AM the Way
THE TRUTH, and the Life...."
Jesus is the Truth, not a book or collection of books, not a religion, etc. All we see in the written word is signposts that point
to the Truth.
has anybody claimed yet, these 'all' are not all? (I think maybe Christadelphians might believe so), it's obvious in my view that sometimes 'all' really mean all.
John 5:28,29
Wonder not at this, for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall go forth; those that have practised good, to resurrection of life, and those that have done evil, to resurrection of judgment.
Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame, to everlasting contempt.
Quote from: sven on February 11, 2009, 09:51:59 PM
has anybody claimed yet, these 'all' are not all?
All ETs (are forced to) claim that. (and do so)
If verses indicate all are saved there can't be an eternal hell.
So the defenition of all gets minimized to:
- elect
- believers
- some of every nation
- some of every social position
- some of every race
- some of ....
It's said in this and other threads UR doesn't hinge of one word (all, aion, will, etc) but ET has to redefine several to make their believe fit.
ETs will agree John is about all.
They also agree 'many' in Daniel means all dead.
But because Daniel also wrote that some go into everlasting contempt (=eternal hell) the verses where Jesus is claiming to save all need to be limited. After all Jesus can't save all because Daniel says many goto hell.
So because ETs translated anion as eternal they are also forced to minimize all in several key verses.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 11, 2009, 02:20:08 PM
Jabcat,
I don't see it as 600 verses that support UR and 1 that doesn't support UR so mathematically seen UR wins.
I say: 601 anti-UR or 601 pro-UR. If not God made a mistake when inspiring the Bible. That would mean He's not almighty.....
Hey WW....I don't think I was saying or seeing what it seems you thought I meant...because IMO, even IF the verse in question is not
directly UR, that doesn't mean it's still not compatible
with UR. You pointed it out yourself earlier. Even if that verse were saying something different than most UR folks believe it does, it still doesn't say everyone won't
eventually be reconciled. The point I was trying to make is, there's 600 more that can be seen as alluding to or directly teaching UR...that there's a strong body of evidence throughout scripture, not just in 1 or 2 critical verses.
-----
On another note, as far as scripture itself....IMO, Jesus was God's logos and rhema
become flesh. He didn't come as a substitue or replacement for scripture/God's Word, or to diminish it or do away with it. He was God's Word with flesh on it. Paul said every word is inspired/God breathed. It's a total package, incorporated within Jesus. It pleased God that all He was dwelled within His Son.
Paul H.,
Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll just refer to your post #40 here: I understand your position. Some of what you mention contested by others is not the result of their diligent search, though they may have worked some to learn certain responses. I have found that much of the controversy can definitively be settled to one's satisfaction by continued examination of the Scripture. You just have to persist in it and continue using whatever other studies that can be brought to bear on the text of the Word itself. After time it clarifies. There are only a few crucial passages directly involved. Not all arguments have the same value.
The way you settle it (in post #40) points to what has to work out in anybody desiring the Truth, something that must arise within one's own self. Yet whether it is a sensation of love for another is easily debated. Love for all humanity when all humanity isn't here before me is rather lame too. The self revelation of God is always love and yet, as a rainbow, His light can be seen in various emphasis. When what is called the "fruit" (sing., not, "fruits") or, "harvest of the Spirit" is listed (cf., Ga 5:22-23) "love" is first and foremost, and may be taken as the title or name of all the segments of it that follow. The mystery of quickening to newness of life by the Holy Spirit in union with our spirit brings its own reasons like is said generally of love: "Love has its reasons that reason cannot know." Yet, so much understanding and explanation flows from such intimacy that to leave it as if we were only bewildered would misrepresent it.
One glittering motive work of the presence of the Holy Spirit is traced through the faith in His written revelation. In perceiving Scripture's glory with a corresponding hunger the pursuit of God is inflamed. As the Proverb says, "As the mouth tests food, so the ear tries words." This is no crass subservience to dogmatic assertion. Here and there the inner illumination at certain points in the midst of dully reading a passage becomes so brilliant and consuming it is a wonder that it is endured is the confession of myriads of followers of the lamb of God. He said that if we would follow Him we would have the light of life.
Consider how the written revelation of God has favorably affected generations of mankind. Everywhere believers have gone, not only chapels and hospitals, but up go the schools and colleges. This was the good foundation laid in our own USA. We are in direct descent from the people of God of old. Scattered about the world by as many as 70% of their number, yet tied to Israel's land, very important among their differences from all other cultures was their ability to read. Inculcated by God, the value of their knowledge from sharing written information throughout the world caused the Roman Empire to make exceptions to accommodate them. The N.T. is half letters. Spread about the Empire and quickly cultivating new hearts, these are what ground the Roman way to powder that the warm autumn wind blew away and in it's place, though fallen, Christendom kept a peace of a thousand years.
Your hypothetical removal of any physical evidence such as Scripture in post #42 that leaves us wading about in varying degrees of truth and error, a swamp of uncertainty, except for some thought that I know I have loved? I do hope, for both our sake, that we are blessed by friends to lift us up when we have fallen. I know I have bouts with what people like Lord Byron called "melancholia." Surely God has inspired us to a better hope for a better day. Paul considered it a workable aspiration: to be summoned into a higher dimension in Christ.
Too often people find a comfortable ignorance because they don't want to pay the price of leaving some "O so dear" sin. We underestimate sin's deceptiveness and sin's enslavement. I know I should diet and exercise and then I say I don't know what the will of God is or how to get well; then, I hope His grace will be sufficient. The way to pray is like you've just been poisoned and God's got the antidote.
your brother, James Rohde
Quote from: jabcat on February 12, 2009, 03:04:11 AM
On another note, as far as scripture itself....IMO, Jesus was God's logos and rhema become flesh. He didn't come as a substitue or replacement for scripture/God's Word, or to diminish it or do away with it. He was God's Word with flesh on it, for 33 years. Paul said every word is inspired/God breathed. It's a total package, incorporated within Jesus. It pleased God that all He was dwelled within His Son. Now that He's returned to Spirit doesn't mean we no longer have any Word...IMO, it's a grave error for us to then diminish, or even put forth the impression that we are diminishing God's Word...either with, or without flesh on it.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you wrote. Are you saying an attack on meaning of verses is an attack on Jesus is a direct attack on God?
If so I agree.
Altough I don't agree with many views I do believe most of who that promote those views have no intention to in any way corrupt Gods word.
Just a case of not understanding. For me it would be like claiming that any student that doesn't passed classes with magna cum laude lied to his prof. during exams/tests.
No, I'm not saying that, and I've modified my post some. Thanks.
Perhaps God is choosing to show UR to certain people, but for those that can't fathom how this is true, these "secrets" will be a surprise gift for them when we all see the Lord in person.
Just what I feel within my spirit. :trampoline:
Quote from: reFORMer on February 11, 2009, 09:03:41 AM
YOU BECOME LIKE THE GOD YOU SERVE!!! Under the statute known as de heretico comburendo they burned Christians at the stake in England from the beginning of the 1400's for 200 years and England was the latecomer, it was even longer in the rest of Europe. The Roman Catholics of the Inquisition said to them that they only, "Consign to temporal flames that you may be saved from eternal flames." To know the Ave Maria, the "Our Father," or "The 10 Commandments" in English was sufficient proof of heresy. To possess parts of the Bible in English was to be a heretic. This did sometimes mean execution. At the stake, they would put the English Bible portions under the chin of the "heretic" and light them aflame. These are well documented in various records that survive, some published and cited in books I recently read by Clara H. Stuart dealing with the life of John Wycliffe and after, to about the middle of the 1500's.
Death could be the result of even association with such people as believed that after consecration the bread and wine remained, or that each predestined man is a priest and able to administer the sacraments without episcopal ordination, or that priests who live evilly hold the keys of hell rather than of heaven and that no Christian is obliged to take count of the censures of such men. Those holding these ideas were deemed worthy of death and those that showed kindness to them could be executed. These are just sample mentions of the crimes for which the Roman Church authorities tortured and killed people.
I also could get into the original 8 volumes of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, The Acts and Monuments, 6,000 pages witten in 1563 on CD's included with other wonderful material (available at www.avpublications.com (http://www.avpublications.com) ) under the title In Awe of Thy Word. Too much to go into here. Just one example: the merchant who could not read. He had framed on his wall an illuminated 10 commandments he was proud of. Too bad it was with the protestant numbering rather than the Roman. He and his family was executed.
It's amazing to me, and a testament to God, that any good people have survived in this world, and the Bible itself, given the unholy tenacity of the musterion anomia--
'the promotion of sin by lawful authorities', plotted in secret by its initiates.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 09, 2009, 01:33:04 PM
QuoteA: Quite the opposite. Since we don't think μάλιστα implies any universalism, but rather is specifically REFUTING universalism (since Jesus is called the savior of those who believe[!] and not just of all humanity), we're attempting to remove the taking sides that takes place if one renders μάλιστα as "especially" in 1 Timothy 4:10. Also, Paul's use of μάλιστα is taking sides! He's saying that Jesus is the savior of a specific subset of "all humanity" (πάντων ἀνθρώπων), that is, he's the savior of "believers" (πιστῶν).
So they used "that is" because "specially/especially" leaves a possible interpretation for UR. That isn't taking sides?
Anyway I would like to read some article about the Greek word.
Or an explanation that shows that even with "that is" the UR meaning still stands.
Oh I get it, Jesus is the Saviour of all human beings, that is, those who believe.
The rest are not human.
Quote from: LoveDefeatsEvil on March 09, 2009, 01:08:36 PM
Perhaps God is choosing to show UR to certain people, but for those that can't fathom how this is true, these "secrets" will be a surprise gift for them when we all see the Lord in person.
Just what I feel within my spirit. :trampoline:
I like that :thumbsup:
Quote from: jabcat on February 10, 2009, 11:11:08 AM
An interesting thing to do is to go to Biblegateway and look at the verse. Out of 20 English translations, by far the translation is "especially", and a time or two "mostly" or "most of all".
Rereading an old thread that sadly died.
I think it's not completly consistant to compare things this way to back up your/our claims. Because we don't do the same with 'for ever' translations either. An article (by Gary?) about hell leaving the Bible sorta claims new insights in translation cause that word translated differently. Newer=better. But for ISV we suddenly claim older=better because that fits our agenda.
Quote from: sven on February 10, 2009, 08:43:19 PM
can I read the bible mentioned in this topic, online?
Very late reply Sven, but it is also avaible as an e-Sword module.
I don't know how to look up the version number of a Bible in e-Sword but the file stamp show 2001.
If you want the modules (isv.bbl and isv.map) and you can find 'em I can upload them somewhere for you.