yesha said:
There's no point in me trying to defend a bible translation's accuracy, the translators answer to qualified scholars about the accuracy of their work. But what amazes me is you seem to think you know better.
If you truly believe all translations are accurate and without bias then that's up to you. We won't argue that.
litterally "in law" meaning a reality contained in the sphere of law, which most translations translate as under law, which meaning is clearer in English because as we all know under law means "Subject to the authority, rule, or control of law" - (Websters def for under) - which can also be written as subject to law.
I do not agree.
En is translated "in" in most cases. But even if what you are saying is accurate, the Torah does say things to those subject to Torah anyway. It accuses all of sin. That is why we are under it. Our obedience to it is not the problem unless you can prove that.
And we are all "in the Torah" or "under the Torah" or whatever you see fit to translate it or anyone else. That is why all have sinned and are doomed to die. But we are free from Torah when we become free from sin (once again, the context, something you seem to refuse to address).
So with a little reseach it appears the translation is accurate. Now lets see your attempt to prove that it is a biased incorrect translation of this prepresition, which as you said means "a multitude of things"
It seemed lumped and desperate, but we don't have to get into it. The point is being missed here.
Now you think law is a bad translation aswell
.
No, I said "law" does not always refer to Torah. "Law" is fine. "Law" always referring to the five books of Moses or what Yahweh commanded through Moses is not.
You said "under the law clearly means being declared a sinner". So I suppose you think that this passage should be translatated " Now we know that whatever the law says speaks to those who are declared a sinner by the Torah. There is a reason why you don't see any translation that say this, and that reason is the scripture doesn't say this.
The scriptures don't say a lot of things. It's the meaning and context behind them. Just like "leaven" represents sin. We shouldn't translate leaven as "sin" all the time though. This is not the right argument. Translation is not the issue concerning "under the law". What "under the law" means in context is the issue, apart from semantic meaning. We can argue semantics all day.
Also I remind you this is the scripture which you said clearly defines what under the law means. Notice how with your meaning this sentence doesn't make much sence, but with a proper translation it does make sense.
Well, that's what you
say.
The law here does mean law, as is evident in the context of the writting leading up to this verse.
It does mean "law", I never disputed that. But "law" does not mean "Torah" and "Torah" does not mean "law".
This example should be sufficient to demonstate that the law is the Torah.
Rom 2:17-20
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
(NIV)
Depends on context. Just like the word "de" doesn't always mean "but". It can mean "and" too. You are not arguing from the right perspective. Here, in context, it could mean Torah or all the Tanach.
Nomos is not always used in the context of Torah. It is used by Messiah referring to the Psalms, for example (John 10:34). Paul uses it in Romans 3:19 referring to the Psalms and Isaiah. So it does not always mean "what came from Mt Sinai through Moses" or Genesis-Deuteronomy. Wrong argument.
It's not clear to me how you came to this conclusion. And this is what supports the rest of your interpretation.
Well, whether or not it is clear to you isn't up to me.
Rom 2:12
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
(NIV)
Notice here how those who sin apart from the law are different then those who sin under the law. So clearly it is not just those under the Torah who are sinners but also those who are apart from it. So all are sinners, and under the law does not mean 'declared a sinner'.
"Under" here means "in", the Greek word being
en again. It is translated as "in" in most translations that I have seen and this is backed by the Strong's Concordance. It would properly be understood "concerning the Torah". "Under the law" cannot be "in the law", because two different words are used. If they meant the same thing, the same word would have been used. And you made no point here. All are sinners because Torah declares them as sinners. When it says "apart from the law" (more properly "lawlessly" or "without law"), it does not mean you can sin in a different way other than transgressing Torah.
That is the whole basis for this argument you made and it does not hold up. Why? Because if you do not have the Torah, then you do not obey it and therefore are still a sinner. Being "apart" from Torah means you do not have it. Thus you are a sinner for breaking it (you don't have it).. The flipside is that the other people who have it still break it. All break it. It is not saying you can sin against some other law that is not Torah. But regardless, it wouldn't matter either way, now that I think of it. If you are not keeping Torah, Torah still declares you a sinner. Bad point.
That's true, but in the bible it usually does. I suppose you think your offering something better then an opinion. The difference being I'm offering an opinion of someone who wrote a lexicon, and your offering your own.
Man can be biased. That's just something you'll have to accept. Lexicons expound on how a word is used in context and thus the point is taken from semantic meaning into intended meaning. Theology can differ, so the fact that a man wrote a lexicon to explain the context and the meaning (theologically speaking) about a word does not mean he is right. Man is not infallible. I don't know about you, but even if a million bible scholars got into a room and all agreed to something, this does not mean I have to believe it. Let Yahweh be true and every man a liar. The "this is wrong because this scholar says this" is not a good argument with Yahweh. You may not give me any credit, but Yahweh's things are spiritually discerned. He does not need it to be justified by scholars (not to say they are not helpful, though).
Why do you ask how? Under authority of law means you are subject to the consequences of transgression.
My point exactly. It does not mean "keeping it".
I could probably use more study on this but sin did not come by the Torah, but the torah exposed the sin.
Rom 5:13
13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
(NIV)
Rom 3:20
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
(NIV)
Yes, there was sin before Sinai. But the Word/Torah of Yahweh was always in heaven (Psalm 119:89). Thus, before it was actually given, sin was in the world.
Sin is transgression of God's will, not Torah.
Can we not ignore 1 John 3:4? Yahweh's will is contained in the Torah, otherwise he would not have told us to keep it.
Thus we should not go back to transgressing God's will.
Please use scripture to prove points.
God's will is made evident through the Spirit of Christ, which is NT Law, written on the heart, not OT Law written on stone.
Please use scripture. Torah was always supposed to be on the heart. (Deuteronomy 30:10-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27, for examples). No such thing as "NT law". On stone means it was outside of the heart to do it. In the heart by the Spirit gives us the heart to perform it (in love and faithful obedience) as opposed to transgressing it. No such thing as a standard of "law" apart from Torah. When people make this claim, they refuse to use scripture because there is none to support it.
[quote:255a7]
Grace and atonement are needed for breaking Torah.
We must be speaking a different language here, because this reads to me that you are saying that we need grace and atonement in order to sin.[/quote:255a7]
No, if we sin we need grace and atonement is what I meant. We need grace when we break Torah or we are condemned.
[quote:255a7]
I think you fail to understand that there is no "christ law" apart from Torah.
1 Cor 9:21
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
(NIV)
I believe, as most other do as well I think, that this shows you to be wrong. But I already know you don't see it.[/quote:255a7]
I don't see it because it isn't there. You go by translation. The Greek reads "subject to law to Christ". And you still didn't do as I asked. I said there is no law apart from Torah (as a standard). Messiah's law, since he is Yahweh, is the same one from before. Give me the record of where it changes and give me the commandments that are listed in it. You will not be able to.
So even if that is the right translation (which for all intents and purposes, we'll say it is), it still doesn't mean there is a Torah of Christ that is apart from Torah. You haven't proven that and you can't.
I don't think the Torah is the problem, but I do think it is "obsolete and aging".
Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
(NIV)
Talking about the priesthood. The word "covenant" does not even appear in the Greek (no point in trying to argue the semantic meaning now). The ongoing theme throughout this chapter and the past few chapters is Messiah and his priesthood. If Torah was done away on the cross, then this scripture is a lie, because this was written long after Messiah's death. BUT, at this time, there was an operating temple system. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 C.E. Torah is Yahweh's Word and thus cannot disappear. The Word of Yahweh stands forever. And let's pretend, for all intents and purposes that this is speaking of the covenant.
Doesn't matter, because the CONTENTS and terms of the covenant are not the covenant itself. Under the old covenant, we were placed under a curse, the two houses became divided and Israel was divorced. That all happened under the old covenant, so it could be (if covenant is being spoken of here) referring to these things, not the contents. Read Hebrews 10:9 and the surrounding verses. He takes away the first priesthood to establish the second.
[quote:255a7]
But a New Covenant does not imply "new commands" or a change of the contents of Torah.
I believe, as most other do as well I think, that this shows you to be wrong.
Heb 7:12
12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
(NIV)[/quote:255a7]
Well, I am not concerned with what most others think. A friend of the world is the enemy of God and wide is the gate that leads to destruction. But ANYWAY, I absolutely knew you were going to bring this up. It becomes funny when people try to use scripture as a smack in your face as if you've never seen it before. Yesha, this is not the first of these arguments I have even been in.
Anyway, the words for both "changes" means to "shift" or "transfer" according to the Strong's Concordance. They were not changed, they were shifted: the priesthood to Messiah, the sacrifices to Messiah. This does not take away the rest of Torah, however. You turn every reference to anything that says "covenant" or "law" into a passage against Torah when that is not the context. The context here is the tabernacle and the priesthood being "shifted/transferred". "Torah is done away, we are in bondage if we keep it" is not the context here.
These laws are eternal and are carried out by Messiah in the heavenly Tabernacle. They are not "changed". And still this is the only case you could make with something like this. You can't prove anything other than the priesthood being "shifted".
It is not easy to understand how someone can read Galations, for example, and come out of it thinking they need to keep the law.
For an unlearned beginner, yes. It would be hard to see. Please read 2 Peter 15-17.
Since my view is the easily discernable, readily verifyable, and generally accepted one, I think anyway, I assumed you were already familar with it. So I shall again try to limit my self to questions.
I am familiar with it. Trust me, you've told me nothing I haven't already heard, or used myself in one of these types of arguments. I just disagree with you and think you are way off and don't understand because of bias. Not an insult, but I remember when I was the same way. "Generally accepted" gives me reason to doubt. You use the fact that something is common or "generally accepted" or what "most others think" as a strength and as an argument, which I disagree with and do not myself.
: 