Born Again?

[JohnDB]

I don't perceive a lie or deception in born from above as in being born again. I read the bible to.

Not suggesting that you don't read the Bible.
It wasn't deception that created the two ways (one an error) of interpreting this passage but most likely unintended consequences of listening and reading all the many sermons on this passage long before the translation work began into English. (500 years ago)

To those who delighted in this passage the reference and very slim tie-in with "rebirth" of the Jewish theology has everything to do with gentile conversion to Judaism.

But Nicodemus was not only Jewish from birth but was a member of the religious leadership. (Self appointment wasn't allowed)
On top of all this Nicodemus recognized and respected Jesus. Meaning that the notion that Jesus telling Nicodemus to "repent" and "renew" his mind is outside of the box of conversation.
And we have this suggested alternative translation that actually fits in with "Sons of God" vx "Sons of Satan" theme in John's Gospel.

Let's put it this way.
Look closely at John 1:12.
Really closely. Write it out longhand, parse the grammar. Diagram the sentence.


If you take that verse at flat, face value then you have no reason to be a Christian or even hope to become one. But something tells us that this decision would be wrong too. It's not over. It's today and tomorrow too. You believe that otherwise you wouldn't be here. But it's in direct conflict with past tense verbs saying it's over and completed.

But if I were to explain to you that the Perfect Aortist tense is a Greek verb tense that actually means past, present, and future at all the same time and that translators have followed a tradition of using the past tense (set by Tyndale) when this is encountered...it clears up the confusion of why John 1:12 reads wrong.

And this knowledge requires more than just reading scriptures and memorizing scriptures...it requires studying and learning hermeneutics.
There's a huge theological difference between the two different renderings of translation.
One translation is almost magical in how it happens and unfolds...
The other is rather flat and mundane and makes Jesus a broken record repeating himself.

 

[Randy]

Not suggesting that you don't read the Bible.
It wasn't deception that created the two ways (one an error) of interpreting this passage but most likely unintended consequences of listening and reading all the many sermons on this passage long before the translation work began into English. (500 years ago)

To those who delighted in this passage the reference and very slim tie-in with "rebirth" of the Jewish theology has everything to do with gentile conversion to Judaism.

But Nicodemus was not only Jewish from birth but was a member of the religious leadership. (Self appointment wasn't allowed)
On top of all this Nicodemus recognized and respected Jesus. Meaning that the notion that Jesus telling Nicodemus to "repent" and "renew" his mind is outside of the box of conversation.
And we have this suggested alternative translation that actually fits in with "Sons of God" vx "Sons of Satan" theme in John's Gospel.

Let's put it this way.
Look closely at John 1:12.
Really closely. Write it out longhand, parse the grammar. Diagram the sentence.


If you take that verse at flat, face value then you have no reason to be a Christian or even hope to become one. But something tells us that this decision would be wrong too. It's not over. It's today and tomorrow too. You believe that otherwise you wouldn't be here. But it's in direct conflict with past tense verbs saying it's over and completed.

But if I were to explain to you that the Perfect Aortist tense is a Greek verb tense that actually means past, present, and future at all the same time and that translators have followed a tradition of using the past tense (set by Tyndale) when this is encountered...it clears up the confusion of why John 1:12 reads wrong.

And this knowledge requires more than just reading scriptures and memorizing scriptures...it requires studying and learning hermeneutics.
There's a huge theological difference between the two different renderings of translation.
One translation is almost magical in how it happens and unfolds...
The other is rather flat and mundane and makes Jesus a broken record repeating himself.

Please give us your translation of the greek as written in John 1:12. (the whole verse)

 

[JohnDB]

Please give us your translation of the greek as written in John 1:12. (the whole verse)

I just did...
It's all 3 tenses of past, present and future at the same time. It's not just past tense as written in English...it includes present tense and those in the future as well who receive and believe in His Name.

 

[Randy]

I just did...
It's all 3 tenses of past, present and future at the same time. It's not just past tense as written in English...it includes present tense and those in the future as well who receive and believe in His Name.

Which is followed by John 1:13
So if you mind please repost your translation of John 1:12-13
NSRV
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.
KJV
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

That birth is from above and by God. The Spirit Jesus sends into the hearts of those who came to Him and believe and obey Him.

 

[JohnDB]

But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

But to all who received (are receiving and will receive him) him, who believed (are believing, and will believe) in his name, he gave (is giving and will give) power to become children of God, 13 who were (are and will be) born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

I included the added tenses for you...is this what you were talking about?

 

[Randy]

NIV translation Committee credentials
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translators/

Nicodemus didn't understand "Born again" and his question to Jesus was
"How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"

Nicodemus was then more than likely a elder or "old" and was asking for himself. He may have come to Jesus at night but at least he had the wisdom to know Jesus was from God and seek answers about his salvation.

Flesh gives birth to flesh; Spirit gives birth to Spirit "born of the Spirit" or born from above or born of God is therefore Jesus's answer to Nicodemus in regard to born again. Those who are born of God are God's children that is those who God states are His children.

The new creation is well understood by the church as in those who state they are born again believers. Christ in us.

 

[JohnDB]

NIV translation Committee credentials
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translators/

Nicodemus didn't understand "Born again" and his question to Jesus was
"How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"

Nicodemus was then more than likely a elder or "old" and was asking for himself. He may have come to Jesus at night but at least he had the wisdom to know Jesus was from God and seek answers about his salvation.

Flesh gives birth to flesh; Spirit gives birth to Spirit "born of the Spirit" or born from above or born of God is therefore Jesus's answer to Nicodemus in regard to born again. Those who are born of God are God's children that is those who God states are His children.

The new creation is well understood by the church as in those who state they are born again believers. Christ in us.

Yes,
I'm well aware of the common reading and reasoning. And as I discussed earlier they have no substantive reason to continue to uphold this mistranslation other than "not rocking the boat". They needed to recoup the investment costs of translation by selling Bibles. Can't do that when everyone is upset because you changed their favorite verse to the truth.
The NIV is the most used Bible in English. It is the Bible of the common man. But denominational leaders all dislike it because the translation usually rubs some of their favorite pet theological positions wrong...they knew this was going to be a problem long before it got to market. (In the '60's)
So they decided not to pick this battle completely and put the footnote in. (I know about the modern commentaries on this as well as the original ones which have been conveniently "forgotten about and no longer published for new, improved, and updated")
It would allow time for everyone to get used to the idea and allow them to remain true to their focus of accurately translating the scriptures.

Then the corporation that created the NIV was sold and bought by a conglomerate firm specializing in publications. Today's NIV is not the same as the original. Nor are the exegetical commentaries. 60 years is a "long time" today.

 

[Randy]

Yes,
I'm well aware of the common reading and reasoning. And as I discussed earlier they have no substantive reason to continue to uphold this mistranslation other than "not rocking the boat". They needed to recoup the investment costs of translation by selling Bibles. Can't do that when everyone is upset because you changed their favorite verse to the truth.
The NIV is the most used Bible in English. It is the Bible of the common man. But denominational leaders all dislike it because the translation usually rubs some of their favorite pet theological positions wrong...they knew this was going to be a problem long before it got to market. (In the '60's)
So they decided not to pick this battle completely and put the footnote in. (I know about the modern commentaries on this as well as the original ones which have been conveniently "forgotten about and no longer published for new, improved, and updated")
It would allow time for everyone to get used to the idea and allow them to remain true to their focus of accurately translating the scriptures.

Then the corporation that created the NIV was sold and bought by a conglomerate firm specializing in publications. Today's NIV is not the same as the original. Nor are the exegetical commentaries. 60 years is a "long time" today.

I believe born a 2nd time as in born again or born from above captures Jesus's meaning unless one is born of the Spirit they can't see the Kingdom of God. Its common as in when one states they are a born again Christian. That is born of God. The children of God.

I am not one who deny's error but I don't see a issue with "born again".

 

[ezra]

There is nothing said about being born anew or born again here. Only born from above.
Born anew is a term the Jews used when Gentiles converted to Judaism...
But that isn't what either one of them was talking about.
Nicodemus followed the Law and believed in Jesus. He had nothing to repent of.

so jesus told Nicodemus convert to Judaism got it and we wonder why the Christian church is far out in left field

 

[ezra]

next we are to throw away our bibles and write them to our satisfaction . when we preach ye must be born again and explain the new spiritual birth -the new creation in Christ .then it stands just as it is written 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]” N I V
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
3 In reply, he said to him, Omein, omein, I say to you, unless someone is born anew [born again, Yn 1:13; Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Isa 52:1; Ezek 44:7,9], he is not able to see the Malchut Hashem.

 

[for_his_glory]

The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic Bible. 2

ROFL...but it is a fine translation as most are. I'm just surprised you have one.
All English translation of scriptures are going to be flawed in some fashion... mostly because English doesn't have the parts of speech and grammar rules as other languages do.

Living Water or Living Law... like Jesus is accommodates every possible situation.

The Old Law and Covenant was good but it doesn't have the same power as the New Living Covenant.

I know that "Born Again" has been taught for 5 centuries...since the start of the Reformation. But it is not correct. Good intentions behind it but it isn't the truth.

Good intentions write commentaries and commentaries on commentaries...but those aren't scriptures as Luther found chained up in a library one day.

It was given to me by a former Pastor. I don't use it as much as my KJV, but like to compare to the writing style that takes me back to not so much the original Greek and Aramaic, but the Aramaic and Greek English translation. It's not really a Catholic Bible, but derives its name from the French version called La Bible de Jerusalem and revised in 1966 on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek.

The 1966 version was prepared by Catholic scholars in Great Britain under the editorship of Alexander Jones of Christ"s College in Liverpool, assisted by twenty-seven colleagues. This Bible was done on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts instead of the Latin Vulgate. It wasn't until 2001 that Alexander Jones converted to Catholicism as before that he was the senior Pastor in the Zion Congregational Church of Christ being a Pentecostal church in Detroit, Michigan and also senior minister in Maranatha Christian Church in Detroit.

 

[JohnDB]

It was given to me by a former Pastor. I don't use it as much as my KJV, but like to compare to the writing style that takes me back to not so much the original Greek and Aramaic, but the Aramaic and Greek English translation. It's not really a Catholic Bible, but derives its name from the French version called La Bible de Jerusalem and revised in 1966 on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek.

The 1966 version was prepared by Catholic scholars in Great Britain under the editorship of Alexander Jones of Christ"s College in Liverpool, assisted by twenty-seven colleagues. This Bible was done on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts instead of the Latin Vulgate. It wasn't until 2001 that Alexander Jones converted to Catholicism as before that he was the senior Pastor in the Zion Congregational Church of Christ being a Pentecostal church in Detroit, Michigan and also senior minister in Maranatha Christian Church in Detroit.

Yeah...The Catholic leadership wasn't exactly thrilled with it either when it was completed. LOL...so they did a few more translations over the years and issued them out. They still aren't exactly thrilled with the current one. Some of their favorite pet theologies are still being vexed by the proper translation of the scriptures without any loopholes. The truth is so annoying in this fashion. Currently they have a policy of telling people that only priests should handle scriptures. "They are the only ones who have the necessary background to understand them fully and the common man doesn't".

Now where the Catholics won't use the UBS-v4 or the BHS or (can't remember the acronym for the newest) their copies of manuscripts and collective manuscript originals that they use looks an awful lot like the same thing.
I find the notes in the Jerusalem Bible really fascinating at times. Granted at times they become really catholic but at others they really just explain why they translated them this way or accurate supporting side information from other scriptures.

 

[for_his_glory]

Nothing comes from the earth as it is all given from above as we are born from above by the grace of God that is the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) sent down to indwell us.

 

[JohnDB]

next we are to throw away our bibles and write them to our satisfaction . when we preach ye must be born again and explain the new spiritual birth -the new creation in Christ .then it stands just as it is written 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]” N I V
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
3 In reply, he said to him, Omein, omein, I say to you, unless someone is born anew [born again, Yn 1:13; Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Isa 52:1; Ezek 44:7,9], he is not able to see the Malchut Hashem.

Uhhh...getting a tad sarcastic here.
I am not rewriting the Bible in any fashion.
I am explaining why there is a footnote on this scripture and how it is actually the preferred translation instead of the commonly known translation.

Now lets look at this conversation from another perspective.

If you were to come by my house after work one day. (about the time Nicodemus showed up to talk to Jesus) and started saying how much you liked and appreciated all the ministry work that I was doing (trying to become my friend) and I then turned around to you and said that you needed to repent of being an atheist and become a Christian...it would kinda sour your opinion of me and it wouldn't be proper in any fashion. (You have never given me a reason to believe you are an atheist or a non-Christian)
And this is what you are stating that the conversation Jesus and Nicodemus were having as does the commonly held belief of the conversation.

Now what I am saying is that the conversation was mistakenly taken in a direction that the translators didn't understand due to the most arcane understanding that could be possibly taken from it and what was not commonly understood being preached heavily by those who were highly interested in evangelism of the Greek world.

And because the translated it into saying what they wanted it to say instead of the truth we are having this conversation today. What you are accusing me of is what they really did over 500 years ago. Nothing new...this was the argument of the Samaritans and the Jews, this is the argument of the Catholics and the Protestants and the Catholics and the Anglicans and the Protestants. All were arguing over Bible translations and pet theologies. We don't accept the Jehovah witnesses because they really warped the translating of the scriptures to fit their theologies.

 

[ezra]

not agreeing with you at all on this peter used the word born again
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Strong's Greek 313: To beget again, beget into a new life. From ana and gennao; to beget or bear. i dont use all the greek stuff out there i use a simple method of looking up words Born again means a new life .that will tell a last person they need to be saved . i look at other translations to even though not a big fan of the NIV i use it to and i am not a kjv only anointed by God person either .could those who translated into English have made some mistakes? possible but i dont see it as a big margin of error .. i dont care about past traditions . am i being sarcastic ? i just speak it how i see it . once again i respect your ability to be able do all this stuff with your software .. but i just don't agree

 

[JohnDB]

NIV translation Committee credentials
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translators/

Nicodemus didn't understand "Born again" and his question to Jesus was
"How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"

Nicodemus was then more than likely a elder or "old" and was asking for himself. He may have come to Jesus at night but at least he had the wisdom to know Jesus was from God and seek answers about his salvation.

Flesh gives birth to flesh; Spirit gives birth to Spirit "born of the Spirit" or born from above or born of God is therefore Jesus's answer to Nicodemus in regard to born again. Those who are born of God are God's children that is those who God states are His children.

The new creation is well understood by the church as in those who state they are born again believers. Christ in us.

Nicodemus comments were about how he didn't believe in himself. Jesus was saying that what Nicodemus was stating about Jesus (as a saint, as I described earlier, a person who was sent by God) was actually true about Nicodemus. Nicodemus' birth had not been prophesied about before he was born and his life had been ordinary.
So Nicodemus was stating that what Jesus was saying could not possibly be true.

What Nicodemus slowly was catching on to was that Jesus was God himself and that he had just asked to be friends with God. (Because of what Jesus was doing and saying and how he was saying it)
Jesus granted his request.
Nicodemus was now friends with God. The same as Abraham.
That's kinda scary for those, like Nicodemus, who understand what that means.

 

[JLB]

Jesus was talking to Nicodemus who was Jew, who thought that his physical birth as the seed of Abraham entitled him to the promises that were made to Abraham and his seed. Jesus corrects this wrong thinking by telling him he must be born again.

So true.


Amen.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Jesus tells him you must be born of water and the spirit. Being born of water is water baptism

Born of water is a reference to natural birth.

Born of the Spirit is a reference to spiritual birth.


No one is born again by being baptized in water.


Water baptism comes after a person is born again.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Being born again is a metaphor for the resurrection. He was essentially telling Nicodemus that he would have to enter the new covenant through water baptism and at the resurrection be born of the Spirit. Paul like wise mentions this in Romans.

Being born again refers to being born of the Spirit.


Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:5-6


Natural birth. = That which is born of the flesh is flesh


Spiritual birth = and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.




JLB

 

[JohnDB]

Being born again refers to being born of the Spirit.


Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:5-6


Natural birth. = That which is born of the flesh is flesh


Spiritual birth = and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.




JLB

Are you going to actually read and understand the facts I have carefully laid out or just shoot from the hip?

There's nothing accurate about "born again" but everything accurate about "born from above" or "sons of God".

I've laid out very meticulously why this is true. Try refuting the facts...if I'm wrong about the facts and language then suggest why I am wrong. Where, is the data I have assembled, incorrect?