Jesus told A lie, John 7:8-10

by jam 22 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  jam

  Still thinking; thanks for pointing that out. I was just

  thinking the same thing. How is it A dumb statement

  when you have different version of the same event.

  It all depend on what version you prefer.
• 

  still thinking

  If you click here, it shows "ouk" reading 'not yet'....however, if you click on the word 'ouk' you will not see it appearing anywhere else in the bible as 'not yet' it always appears as 'not'...my guess would be that it has been interpreted 'not yet' by some to make it fit....but then thats just my opinion....don't want to be dumb or anything.

  http://interlinearbible.org/john/7-8.htm ou, ouk, ouch: not, no

  Original Word: ο?
  Part of Speech: Particle, Negative
  Transliteration: ou, ouk, ouch
  Phonetic Spelling: (oo)
  Short Definition: no, not Definition: no, not.
• 

  Chemical Emotions

  Interesting.
• 

  OldGenerationDude

  Remember while our reading of a text may be as simple as turning our eyes to it, our understanding can often be clouded by modern notions as well as unfamiliarity with the way both writer organized material and the reason a person spoke in such a manner.

  There are forms of expression in Hebrew that cannot be understood at first blush or very easily from a translation, especially when one has no familiarity and experience with the culture. To illustrate, not too long ago in American English there was a great difference between calling a woman "phat" and "fat," even though the words sound the same. Someone listening who was not in the loop with fads and US pop culture would not be equipped to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the differences between the two phrases.

  While the words in John may be Greek, the original language was Hebrew/Aramaic which uses an indirect way of communication (recall the unique use of the Semitic half-affirmative at Matthew 26:25, 64, 27:11, "you say so" and the "what have I in common that has anything to do with you" expressions of Jesus--a use of the Hebrew denial-of-common-interest form at John 2:4, also used at Mark 1:24, 5:27). These are forms of speech which have no equivalent in English or in our Anglo-American culture. And they are not the only ones that one comes across when reading John, as the verses of 7:8-10 demonstrate.

  I came across several commentaries in reference to this reading, and this is the way it is generally explained by translators, theologians, and exegetes:

  The Gospel of John relies heavily on a series of word plays that repeat again and again and again. For example, there are several uses of "I AM" that, while they can be translated different ways, are used instrumentally throughout the text in reference to the prologue at the beginning of this gospel.

  The same play occurs with the expression "go up." Like Jesus reference to his raising the temple of his body, the gospel of John commonly shows Jesus acting contrary to his words as a way to demonstrate that his disciples often missed the true meaning behind them. Since Jesus does go to the festival, apparently he is once again talking about something which cannot be gleaned from a surface listening to or reading of his words, even in their original tongue. The indirect use of speech common to the Hebrew culture was obviously a pushing-of-the-envelope in the hands of the Nazarene teacher to an extent not experienced before.

  Because of this creative use of the indirect-expression in Hebrew culture by Jesus, scholars note that there are three other "go up" statements that occur in John, namely at 3:14, 6:62, and 20:17. All four together are seen as a play on the words "go up", referring not only to going up to Jerusalem but also to exaltation at the cross, the resurrection, and Christ's ascension.

  Some early manuscripts have "not yet" inserted that, via analytical textual research has been demonstrated to be an interpolation by those who were unfamiliar with Jesus' original meaning, and took the reading as false the way it stood.
• 

  tec

  E x cellent post, OGD!

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Terry

  Just keep one fact in mind before you quibble over wibble.

  Any glaring errors in scripture have been seen by tens of thousands of eyes before us.

  Those eyes belonged to redactors, translators, copyists and scribes who would NATURALLY AMEND what they believed to be errata and pass on the

  "repaired" version in their own copy.

  This is one way bible detectives trace copies back through the myriad of branches through the millennia.

  Just as TEC easily polished off any apparent "lie" with a nifty explanation---so too did scribes. That this is ADDING TO or SUBTACTING FROM scripture

  never entered their minds. Pious fraud is, after all, an honest person trying to clarify what God INTENDED TO SAY, but, apparently screwed up somehow.

  If you want a perfect example of this in our own relatively recent era you need to look at the earliest versions of THE BOOK OF MORMON and compare it to the redactions over the years!!

  The earliest versions had horrible spelling and grammar errors abounding.

  Not so for today's version!

  All those thousands of "corrections" merely erased the ACTUAL from what the redactor perceives to be the "intended" truth.

  Think about it.
• 

  jam

  It can easily seem that to get into A debate( details

  of interpretation and subtle queation of translation)

  all requires one to be A Biblical scholar. Fortunately,

  this is not the case when dealing with fundamentalists

  who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

  The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts Christians in the position

  of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of

  error( remerber, none of the original autograph manuscripts

  exist) but that their moder version of the Bible is the end

  result of an error free history of coping and translation

  beginning with the originals.

  A great example; Gen.32;30 "For I have seen God face to face

  and my life is preserved."

  John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at ANY time.

  Both statements cannot be true.
• 

  Andrew Sh

  Jam,

  God, according to the Scriptures is invisible. If He were visible in His nature then you wouldn't be able to see anything else, because He is also everywhere all the time. Hence John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time": of course not, not in His real form, He is invisible by nature.

  "For I have seen God face to face...." etc. So what does it mean? It cannot be meant to be taken literally.... Firstly because of the reason above; secondly, because God doesn't have a face. I leave you and for others to arrive at the intended meaning. It isn't intended to be taken literally.

  Suppose I said to you: "I have seen Death face to face and my life is preserved" would you then say that I was saying that I had literally seen Death? Of course not: it simply means "I have come exceedingly close to Death...and lived".

  The Bible uses just about every figure of speech there is. To understand Scripture various rules need to be followed including:-

  1 - Play close attention to the context.

  2 - Interpret briefer statements by fuller ones.

  3 - Interpret Scripture by Scripture, avoiding self-contradiction.

  4 - Observe the law of Full mention.

  5 - Determine the scope of each passage.

  6 - Collect and collate all passages dealing with the same subject.

  7 - Recognise non-literal language.

  (Taken from "Interpretation of the Scriptures" by A W Pink)

  Regards
• 

  Andrew Sh

  "The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts Christians in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error( remerber, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their moder version of the Bible is the end result of an error free history of coping and translation beginning with the originals." - Jam

  There may be some Christians, somewhere, who imagine that modern versions of the Bible are free from error, but that is not the consensus view amongst us fundamentalists; which is:-

  God has preserved within the extant copies of the original Greek an Hebrew texts sufficient for us to know what was the original text. This is in keeping with the promise of Our Lord "Heaven and earth will pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33. It is not the consensus to claim that there is any non Greek/non Hebrew version that is given by God/free from all error.

  Unfortunately, some think to play fast and loose with the original Greek and Hebrew and come up with versions which have more to do with preconceived doctrinal prejudice than accuracy, eg the New World Translation, eg "the word was a god" rather than "the Word was God".

  It is a wonderful truth, though, that the same Gospel of Grace is clearly shown in both Protestant and Roman Catholic versions of the Bible, even though these faith groups differ on so much else. The only problem with the Roman Catholic bible, from a Protestant view, is that they recognise as canonical more books in the Old Testament than are recognised by the Protestant Churches, and more, tellingly, by the Jews. Further, the Roman Catholic church only declared these books canonical in the 16th century.
• 

  cantleave

  Andrew Sh - how fundamentalist are you? Do you believe the creation account literally? Six days? Evolution a lie? Noah's worldwide flood?

  Feel free to answer on another thread - this off topic!