@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:

Lie! Lie! Lie!

I see it's all yours, because this is what you said:

cocoman4u:

What you are doing here is draging the question or looking for a sacpe goat. Justcol did not allege that "you" was omitted in the KJV,

. . . even if you shout it a million times, justcool actually alleged it so:

justcool:

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

Why didn't you take the time to go back and check instead of bursting in to scream out "Lie! Lie! Lie"? The one thing that I marvel at you guys is to pretend to ignore the facts so you can find a way of screaming what you should not. Please take it easy - the case is there just in case you might like to re-check.

Shalom.

cocoman4u:

In English you can say, "One should wash ones hands before eating." When translating this sentence to igbo or some other languages, you have to remove the "one" at the begining of the sentence otherwise it will not make sense in igbo. In igbo "one" which means "ofu or Otu" cannot be used to denote a person as it is usualy used in English. If you tranlate the sentence word by word in igbo, you will have, "Otu kwesiri ikwo aka tupu otu eri ihe." This hardly makes sence. Therefore in-order to rightly translate the sentence in igbo, you will have to remone the "one"(otu) at the begining and replace it with either "you, a person, or a humanbeing."
Therefore the correct transaltion on igbo will be, "Mmadu(humangeing) kwseiri ikwo aka tupu ori ihe."

Therefore the fact that the word "you" was not in the original Gree version does not mean that it should not be in the English version. In-order to convey the right meaning of that verse in English, the word "you" is added at the begining. Otherwise the meaning may be distorted. This thread made me research on translations and perticularly John 5:39. The truth is the utterer of that verse does not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life. He says that the scriptures bear witness of Him yet they do not come to Him. I believe that Jesus only recomended Himself as the source of eternal life, not the scriptues. Actaully that verse warns against the attitude that poeple have towards the bible today. It also shows that the scriptures can prevent sombody from going to christ, if that person takes the scriptures to be all and all.

I clearly see why the word "you" should be at the begining of the sentence in-order to convey the right meaning of the verse. In English if you say "search the scriptures, " it is usually taken as a command. But when you say, "You search the scriptures, " Depending on how the rest of the sentence goes, this may not be a command.
Therefore, in-order for the sentence to make sense in English and still hold it's original greek meaning it should be translated as, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The concluding parts of the sentence shows that it is not a command, so in English it will not be very correct to start it with a commanding tone.

I am greatful for this thread because I leant alot from it and the researches that it forced me to do.

Did all or any of the omission and insertion of the pronouns from any of those languages indicate the imperative as a "command"?

pilgrim.

Check cocoman4u's statement again.
He's saying that justcool did not allege. Justcool stated it as a fact. By saying that he alleged you are either being misleading or telling a lie as accused.
One doesn't need to allege when alluding to a fact.

Why didn't you take the time to go back and check instead of bursting in to scream out "Lie! Lie! Lie"? The one thing that I marvel at you guys is to pretend to ignore the facts so you can find a way of screaming what you should not. Please take it easy - the case is there just in case you might like to re-check.

Touche!!!

cocoman4u:

Lie! Lie! Lie!
What you are doing here is draging the question or looking for a sacpe goat. Justcol did not allege that "you" was omitted in the KJV, The "you" was actually omitted in KJV, therefore it cannot be an allegation. He compared KJV with other English translations, and actually in KJV, the word "you" was actualy omitted(missing). Omitted simply means "left out," "not included" "disregarded". In KJV the word "you" which most English translations included was omitted. You can argue that the omittion was correct because the word "you" was not on the original Greek verse. But you cannot say the "you" was not omited in KJV when compared with other english translations. justcol was compareing KJV with other English translations not the original greek version.

Besides, anybody who know about languages and translations, knows that you do not translate sentences word by word. In order to convey the right meaning, when translating, words may be added or removed. This is done in-order to comply the operations of the language. I will give an example;

In English you can say, "One should wash ones hands before eating." When translating this sentence to igbo or some other languages, you have to remove the "one" at the begining of the sentence otherwise it will not make sense in igbo. In igbo "one" which means "ofu or Otu" cannot be used to denote a person as it is usualy used in English. If you tranlate the sentence word by word in igbo, you will have, "Otu kwesiri ikwo aka tupu otu eri ihe." This hardly makes sence. Therefore in-order to rightly translate the sentence in igbo, you will have to remone the "one"(otu) at the begining and replace it with either "you, a person, or a humanbeing."
Therefore the correct transaltion on igbo will be, "Mmadu(humangeing) kwseiri ikwo aka tupu ori ihe."

Therefore the fact that the word "you" was not in the original Gree version does not mean that it should not be in the English version. In-order to convey the right meaning of that verse in English, the word "you" is added at the begining. Otherwise the meaning may be distorted. This thread made me research on translations and perticularly John 5:39. The truth is the utterer of that verse does not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life. He says that the scriptures bear witness of Him yet they do not come to Him. I believe that Jesus only recomended Himself as the source of eternal life, not the scriptues. Actaully that verse warns against the attitude that poeple have towards the bible today. It also shows that the scriptures can prevent sombody from going to christ, if that person takes the scriptures to be all and all.

I clearly see why the word "you" should be at the begining of the sentence in-order to convey the right meaning of the verse. In English if you say "search the scriptures, " it is usually taken as a command. But when you say, "You search the scriptures, " Depending on how the rest of the sentence goes, this may not be a command.
Therefore, in-order for the sentence to make sense in English and still hold it's original greek meaning it should be translated as, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The concluding parts of the sentence shows that it is not a command, so in English it will not be very correct to start it with a commanding tone.

I am greatful for this thread because I leant alot from it and the researches that it forced me to do.

Word!

worthy also to mention that in English when ever you address an issue with: "You think, or they Think." It usualy means that you don't agree with their line of thought. Or that what they think is not an established truth. If waht they think is the Truth, you cannot say, "you think" rather you will say, "You know"

If I say to you, "you respond that way because you think that I am a man." This usually means that I don't agree that I am a man or that I don't consider that your thinking of me as a man is right.
If I agree that I am a man or if it is an established truth, then I will say, "you respond that way because you know that I am a man"

If I say, "you go to america because you think that there is money there." Does this mean that I think that there is money in america? No!

If it is an established truth that there is money in America, I will say, "you go to america becuase you know that there is money there."

If I say, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life"
This means that I don't believe that there is eternal life in the scriptures, otherwise I would have said, "You search the scriptures because you know that in them you have eternal life."

cocoman4u:

Lie! Lie! Lie!
What you are doing here is draging the question or looking for a sacpe goat. Justcol did not allege that "you" was omitted in the KJV, The "you" was actually omitted in KJV, therefore it cannot be an allegation. He compared KJV with other English translations, and actually in KJV, the word "you" was actualy omitted(missing). Omitted simply means "left out," "not included" "disregarded". In KJV the word "you" which most English translations included was omitted. You can argue that the omittion was correct because the word "you" was not on the original Greek verse. But you cannot say the "you" was not omited in KJV when compared with other english translations. justcol was compareing KJV with other English translations not the original greek version.

Besides, anybody who know about languages and translations, knows that you do not translate sentences word by word. In order to convey the right meaning, when translating, words may be added or removed. This is done in-order to comply the operations of the language. I will give an example;

In English you can say, "One should wash ones hands before eating." When translating this sentence to igbo or some other languages, you have to remove the "one" at the begining of the sentence otherwise it will not make sense in igbo. In igbo "one" which means "ofu or Otu" cannot be used to denote a person as it is usualy used in English. If you tranlate the sentence word by word in igbo, you will have, "Otu kwesiri ikwo aka tupu otu eri ihe." This hardly makes sence. Therefore in-order to rightly translate the sentence in igbo, you will have to remone the "one"(otu) at the begining and replace it with either "you, a person, or a humanbeing."
Therefore the correct transaltion on igbo will be, "Mmadu(humangeing) kwseiri ikwo aka tupu ori ihe."

Therefore the fact that the word "you" was not in the original Gree version does not mean that it should not be in the English version. In-order to convey the right meaning of that verse in English, the word "you" is added at the begining. Otherwise the meaning may be distorted. This thread made me research on translations and perticularly John 5:39. The truth is the utterer of that verse does not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life. He says that the scriptures bear witness of Him yet they do not come to Him. I believe that Jesus only recomended Himself as the source of eternal life, not the scriptues. Actaully that verse warns against the attitude that poeple have towards the bible today. It also shows that the scriptures can prevent sombody from going to christ, if that person takes the scriptures to be all and all.

I clearly see why the word "you" should be at the begining of the sentence in-order to convey the right meaning of the verse. In English if you say "search the scriptures, " it is usually taken as a command. But when you say, "You search the scriptures, " Depending on how the rest of the sentence goes, this may not be a command.
Therefore, in-order for the sentence to make sense in English and still hold it's original greek meaning it should be translated as, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The concluding parts of the sentence shows that it is not a command, so in English it will not be very correct to start it with a commanding tone.

I am greatful for this thread because I leant alot from it and the researches that it forced me to do.

Word!

worthy also to mention that in English when ever you address an issue with: "You think, or they Think." It usualy means that you don't agree with their line of thought. Or that what they think is not an established truth. If waht they think is the Truth, you cannot say, "you think" rather you will say, "You know"

If I say to you, "you respond that way because you think that I am a man." This usually means that I don't agree that I am a man or that I don't consider that your thinking of me as a man is right.
If I agree that I am a man or if it is an established truth, then I will say, "you respond that way because you know that I am a man"

If I say, "you go to america because you think that there is money there." Does this mean that I think that there is money in america? No!

If it is an established truth that there is money in America, I will say, "you go to america becuase you know that there is money there."

If I say, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life"
This means that I don't believe that there is eternal life in the scriptures, otherwise I would have said, "You search the scriptures because you know that in them you have eternal life."

Bastage:

pilgrim.

Check cocoman4u's statement again.
He's saying that justcool did not allege. Justcool stated it as a fact. By saying that he alleged you are either being misleading or telling a lie as accused.
One doesn't need to allege when alluding to a fact.

Touche!!!

Thank you my brother. I couldn't have said it better.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

pilgrim.

Check cocoman4u's statement again.
He's saying that justcool did not allege. Justcool stated it as a fact. By saying that he alleged you are either being misleading or telling a lie as accused.
One doesn't need to allege when alluding to a fact.

Touche!!!

I am willing to reason with people where they point out issues, and several people have come round to simply do that instead of bursting in to scream what they should not. Thank you for calmly pointing that out, and I indeed have said several times that justcool had both alleged and accused the KJV of what it should not.

Let me say first that I had used the emphasis "and" above to show that I did not consider both words to be the same thing in this regard. How?

Well, in the case of the "alleged", I had the sense of what he "declared but not proved", "claimed to be true", or otherwise "state; argue; assert".

On the other hand, in the case of "accused", I had the sense that justcool had directly "blamed" or, "made a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against" the KJV.

Now, if what I had said was misleading, I should be able to apologise. I stated these two things in reference to justcool's: he had 'alleged' and had 'accused' the KJV unfairly - to the end that it (the KJV) was making the said case a matter of a "command".

In this regard, it seemed so to me, that justcool's declaration was an accusation, especially as he had said: [list]

justcool:

In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

[/list]

. . . and my point in pointing these things out was that -

pilgrim.1:

The allegation was untenable and unhealthy, especially where justcool had not checked his assumptions in the first place. Like I said earlier: "Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged."

Now, "nobody was making it a command" was what I had been trying to point out - and to have maintained that KJV was one of the translations that have "changed or distorted" the meaning was why I had inferred that justcool's allegation and accusation were untenable and unhealthy.

pilgrim.1:

Now, "nobody was making it a command" was what I had been trying to point out - and to have maintained that KJV was one of the translations that have "changed or distorted" the meaning was why I had inferred that justcool's allegation and accusation were untenable and unhealthy.

In all the counter arguments offered so far to what I had pointed out all along from the very onset, I guess some of us need to go back and read Pastor AIO's recent rejoinder again - just to help us see an example of how people can make good sense when they do careful reading of other people's inputs. Where he did not get my point initially, he asked questions and dialogued, and I appreciated his ripostes. . . when at last it is evident that we had been on the same page.

After all has been said, my one question in all the language "research" is this: WHO has been making John 5:39 a COMMAND?!? If it was not a "command" in the first place, why can't we just see that simple point all this while?

pilgrim.1:


After all has been said, my one question in all the language "research" is this: WHO has been making John 5:39 a COMMAND?!? If it was not a "command" in the first place, why can't we just see that simple point all this while?

I think the problem is lies in the fact that when justcool, myself and others have used the word command we meant it in the sense that the sentence was NOT supposed to be constructed as an imperative. While I can't speak for justcool, I know that I personally was not making a distinction between the two. I then noticed that you were making a distinction.

If I say - 'Sit Down'. That is the imperative of the verb 'To sit down'. I [/b]call it a command sentence. If however I notice that you insist that it is not a command because the person saying the imperative may only be recommending someone to sit down, or suggesting to someone to sit down, rather than commanding someone to sit down, then I am happy to change the way in which I use the word command just for you, [b]YET the fact remains that it was translated into english as an imperative when it should not have been. This is a mistranslation that has resulted in the OMISSION of the word YOU from the beginning of the text, thus allowing the text to be completely misunderstood.

Hi Pastor AIO,

Thanks again for weighing in with that highlight.
______________________

@Others,
Let us all understand something here. That verse was not a command, no matter how anyone slices it. For one to insist that the pronoun 'you' was omitted so that the verse was a mistranslation is an unfair claim to make, especially where the one maintaining that idea has not been able to demonstrate it so. I have demonstrated this by comparing a few verses to the case (John 5:39; 6:26 and 7:52). In the latter case where the pronoun is absent, it agrees in perfect sense that it is not a command even when read simply as "Search, and look". We should not be tied with just a linear idea of the word "imperative" - at least, several languages apply the imperative in many different ways than just our single idea of a "command". The verse in question was not a "command", and charging that KJV had "distorted" the meaning was unfair, for that is not true.

Pastor AIO:

I think the problem is lies in the fact that when justcool, myself and others have used the word command we meant it in the sense that the sentence was NOT supposed to be constructed as an imperative. While I can't speak for justcool, I know that I personally was not making a distinction between the two. I then noticed that you were making a distinction.

If I say - 'Sit Down'. That is the imperative of the verb 'To sit down'. I [/b]call it a command sentence. If however I notice that you insist that it is not a command because the person saying the imperative may only be recommending someone to sit down, or suggesting to someone to sit down, rather than commanding someone to sit down, then I am happy to change the way in which I use the word command just for you, [b]YET the fact remains that it was translated into english as an imperative when it should not have been. This is a mistranslation that has resulted in the OMISSION of the word YOU from the beginning of the text, thus allowing the text to be completely misunderstood.

@pastor
We all understand this. Remenber that som guy posted that verse along with other biblical verses in defence for reading the scriptures. His idea has that Christ actually recomemded reading the scriptures by John5:39. Then justcool gave many parralell translation and proved that in that verse Christ did not recomend the scriptures as the source of eternal life.  I believe that "command" used in this thread we all understand it to be that an imparactive, suggestion, or the affirmation that we should all read the scriptures. I beleive that we all understand the context on which command is used. Pilgrim 1 is only playing with words looking for a way out of the conner she put herself.
If I remember correctly, justcool said that the statement is a "reproach" I completely agree with him in that sense.
One thing with pilgrim is that when she is losing she will never admit it, she would rather acuse poeple and make up such subtle distingtions that even she herself does not understand, or she will capitalize on a word or an expression. The bone of contention here is not the word "Command" as she has smartly shifted the issue towards that. The bone of contention is this: Does John 5:39 recomend that we should depend on the scriptures or not?

I will give another example of how tricky pilgrim 1 is.
Justcool said:
"The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach."

From the above we see that justcol said that KJV ommited "you". (We all know that this is a fact, because we find "you" in other English translations.) Justcol also infered that This ommition makes the verse sound like a command instead of a reproach. By this he did not say that KJV intentionaly made it a command.

Now pilgrim 1 twisted it and acused justcoll of saying that KJV changed the verse into a command. Here is what pilgrim 1 said:

Now, "nobody was making it a command" was what I had been trying to point out - and to have maintained that KJV was one of the translations that have "changed or distorted" the meaning was why I had inferred that justcool's allegation and accusation were untenable and unhealthy.

[quote][/quote]

You see how she twists issues, lie and acuse people.  Show me where justcol made the acused allegations. Nobody ever said that KJV intentionaly changed it to a command. I beleive pilgrim 1 is trying to make justcol the scape goat and thereby divert us from her lies and allegations.

pilgrim.1:

@Pastor AIO,

This is the original Greek of the verse.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτέ με, οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.

Now here, as is most often the case the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) - you seek/search does not have a pronoun attached to it.  Which all goes to further illustrate my point. It is a totally different verb from ερευνατε which means to peruse/investigate/examine as what one would do with a text, as opposed to looking for somebody. 

Glad you recognize that the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) does not have a pronoun preceding it, which demonstrates that it is not the convention to always have or otherwise leave out the pronoun in Greek imperatives. All the examples cited so far (John 5:39 and 7:52 and 6:26) point to the fact that such imperatives may have the pronoun or otherwise do not have the pronoun.

I'm sorry but Zeteite is not an imperative.  Perhaps you are not aware of what an imperative is in verb construction.  An imperative is when you are telling someone to do something, whether recommending them to do it or commanding them to do it. An indicative, on the other hand, is when you are indicating that someone is doing something already.  Zeteite means 'You search'. It is an indicative.  It is indicating that the 2nd person is searching. In greek you don't put a pronoun on the indicative but it is understood that it is indicative so when translated to english you must put in the pronoun.  Imperatives never have a pronoun.

For example:  Sit down!  is imperative/  you are sitting down is indicative.

Stand up!  is imperative/ you are standing up is indicative.  

Eat bread is imperative /  you eat bread is indicative.  

so when you say . . .  

that such imperatives may have the pronoun or otherwise do not have the pronoun.

. . . that is just plain wrong because imperatives never have a pronoun.  

In english, to not put in the pronoun in an indicative is definitely an omission, and one which leads the reader to think that the word is an imperative thereby misleading the reader.  

pilgrim.1:



Okay, I commend your submission on distingusihing between ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) and ερευνατε. For the sake of our readers, perhaps it may be necessary to point out further that in Greek ζητεῖτέ could be used for both searching for something and someone. Would it help to check with some study aids (like Thayer's Greek Definitions); and then looking at a few examples where ζητεῖτέ is used in both cases? A few of such examples:

     ■    ζητεῖτέ used in searching/seeking someone:

       John 7:11 - 'Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?'

       2 Timothy 1:17  - 
      'But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me'
      _______________________________       

     ■    ζητεῖτέ used in searching/seeking something:

       Luke 15:8 - 'Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece,
       doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?'

       1 Cor. 1:22 - 'For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.'

       Matthew 13:45 - 'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man,
       seeking goodly pearls.'

In either cases, the words ζητεῖτέ and ερευνατε are used whether as regards seeking/searching for someone or something. And examples where ερευνατε is used as indicative for searching/seeking for something other than a text (but in connection with people) could be found in Romans 8:27 and 1 Cor. 2:10.

* Romans 8:27 - 'And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what
    is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to
    the will of God.'

* 1 Cor. 2:10 - 'But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:
    for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.'

even though both words are translated as You search, in fact they are two very different things. Zeteite means you search and look for something or someone that is not present.  Ereunate means you investigate, probe, examine, search through.  the object you are searching through is very much present it is a matter of investigating it.  I used a text as an example of something that you ereunate.  You can also search/investigate/ereunate the heart, and also ereunate/examine/investigate the deep things of God.  If you zeteite your text then that means you've lost the text and you are looking for it everywhere, under the table, on the shelf, in your bag  . . . where can that text be?  Yet when you are ereunate the text that means the text is right there in your hands and you are probing into it.

@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:

One thing with pilgrim is that when she is losing she will never admit it, she would rather acuse poeple and make up such subtle distingtions that even she herself does not understand, or she will capitalize on a word or an expression. The bone of contention here is not the word "Command" as she has smartly shifted the issue towards that. The bone of contention is this: Does John 5:39 recomend that we should depend on the scriptures or not?

Dear cocoman4u, I don't know if you're just forcing yourself with these complaints. Where justcool made the allegations, I have referred to that very same thing SEVERAL TIMES already. Now please sir, if you can calm down and admit to the plain fact, you can then rest your heart. You need to go back and read it as simply as it is - and if you don't understand what it is with the "command", please ask questions. NOT IN ONE INSTANCE did I ever imply that John 5:39 was a command - NOT ONE. In fact, I pointed out several times that it was not so - please go back to my earliest rejoinder and see. This attitude of trying to accuse what is vacant against my post is very unhealthy. A reasonable person should not be screaming "lie, lie, lie" when he has nothing to show where I was making false statements. Go back and see for yourself - I had already stated that it was not a command from my earliest riposte!

cocoman4u:

I will give another example of how tricky pilgrim 1 is.
Justcool said:
"The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach."

From the above we see that justcol said that KJV ommited "you". (We all know that this is a fact, because we find "you" in other English translations.) Justcol also infered that This ommition makes the verse sound like a command instead of a reproach. By this he did not say that KJV intentionaly made it a command.

Now pilgrim 1 twisted it and acused justcoll of saying that KJV changed the verse into a command. Here is what pilgrim 1 said:

You see how she twists issues, lie and acuse people.  Show me where justcol made the acused allegations. Nobody ever said that KJV intentionaly changed it to a command. I beleive pilgrim 1 is trying to make justcol the scape goat and thereby divert us from her lies and allegations.

I did not twist anything - and this incessant drib about my twisting anything is a farce. No matter how you slice that verse, it does not "sound like a command" as alleged in justcool. Where people have asked questions as to what was meant by "alleged", "accused" and "imperative", I have clearly enunciated the same things without changing a dot of my postion all along! Please rest your heart - you're not to be disturbed on an adventure of seeing anyone as a scapegoat unless you deliberately want to.

@pilgrim 1
Yes it actually sound like a command, suggestion, or imperative when you say, "search the scriptures."

Since we are deviating from the real issue let me show how thi started. The guy that posted that verse tried to use it to suggest that Jesus encouraged us to search the scriptures. Here is what the guy posted:

Image123:
Jesus encouraged His followers to use the Word (the scriptures).He is refered to as the Scriptures. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

This is justcool's reply:

justcool:
Actually John 5:39 does not encourage people to search the scriptures. Here is the same verse from other translations:


International Standard Version (©2008)
"You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me. But you are not willing to come to me to have life."

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."


GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"You study the Scriptures in detail because you think you have the source of eternal life in them. These Scriptures testify on my behalf. Yet, you don't want to come to me to get [eternal] life."


American Standard Version
"Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life."

Bible in Basic English
"You make search in the holy Writings, in the belief that through them you get eternal life; and it is those Writings which give witness about me. And still you have no desire to come to me so that you may have life."

Douay-Rheims Bible
"Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. And you will not come to me that you may have life."


The verse correctly said that people search the scriptures because they think that the scriptures contain eternal life. But the scriptures at best bear witness or points towards Jesus Who is the Truth. Therefore there is no eternal life in the scriptures. Eternal life only comes by living the words of Jesus. Therefore we should put Christ before everything, even before the scriptures. This is what the verse(John 5:39) is saying.

In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

Besides in John 5:39, or in the time of Jesus, what was referred to as the "scriptures" was not the Bible we have today. What they had then was what the jews have today as the torah, parts of which is contained in the old testament.

And here is pilgrim 1's reply:

Pilgrim 1:
In other words, people are not encouraged to search the Scriptures? You should be careful what you say, because interpretations matter - depending on what you either read out of a text, or otherwise read into the text.

By the question that pilgrim 1 asked above you can see that she was argueing in the favour of the notion that Jesus encouraged us to read the scriptures. But leter she changed her stance and capitalized on the command.

I think that Pastor AIO made it clear that by command is ment imparative.

Now let us return to the original question. Pilgrim 1 In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not? Just answer yes or no, and dont come up with the jargon or of wheather it is a command or not.

But what we have been discussing on this thread is only the tip of the iceberg.  Things have progressed to a much more sinister level elsewhere.  Take for instance what we find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhema
Especially comments like this:

By contrast, the Logos (λόγος), is typically used in Scripture to refer to what God has said to His people, that is, the collection of God's sayings about Himself, His relationship with His creation and His Church. The Logos of God is true for all time and in all places[b]. It is easy to see how this can be interpreted both as the bible (God's Word Written) and in the Person of Jesus Christ (God's Word in the Flesh) [/b]as seen in John's Gospel, Chapter 1.

What this amounts to is stating that the Bible is Jesus.

Also here: http://ati.iblp.org/ati/family/articles/concepts/rhema/
The say:

The Word of God

There are two primary Greek words that describe Scripture which are translated word in the New Testament. The first, logos, refers principally to [b]the total inspired Word of God [/b]and to Jesus, Who is the living Logos.

What is going on in the pentecostal movement is in effect the raising of the bible to the level of Diety, Jesus himself.  You'll hear statements that the bible is Jesus-in-writing etc.  It is for this reason that discussions such as these are very important and I'm quite glad that we're having it.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

I'm sorry but Zeteite is not an imperative.  Perhaps you are not aware of what an imperative is in verb construction.  An imperative is when you are telling someone to do something, whether recommending them to do it or commanding them to do it. An indicative, on the other hand, is when you are indicating that someone is doing something already.  Zeteite means 'You search'. It is an indicative.  It is indicating that the 2nd person is searching. In greek you don't put a pronoun on the indicative but it is understood that it is indicative so when translated to english you must put in the pronoun.  Imperatives never have a pronoun.

Let me point out a few things:

1. "Zeteite is not an imperative", according to you; and "You search" is an indicative, yes? Please read John 7:52 again - and let us know if "Search, and look" was an indicative in which it seems they were "already doing so". If that were the case, why were the Jews using the idicative in that verse when they already were doing so?

2. If you interprete it as "You search" (although the pronoun is not there), does that make it an imperative or an indicative? I'm still on that verse in John 7:52.

Pastor AIO:

For example:  Sit down!  is imperative/  you are sitting down is indicative.

Stand up!  is imperative/ you are standing up is indicative.  

Eat bread is imperative /  you eat bread is indicative.  

so when you say . . .  
. . . that is just plain wrong because imperatives never have a pronoun.

I'm sorry, but have you noticed that you're assuming the clauses stand alone? Are you not the same gentleman who has been talking about the connections of structure of words in the sentence in John 5:39? If I said simply: "Sit down!" and "You sit down!", both can be taken as "commands" if they stood alone - but we note that the sentence does not stand alone as merely "Search the scriptures!" if it did as such, then it stands to be understood as a direct "command", no? Please review and let me know.

Pastor AIO:

In english, to not put in the pronoun in an indicative is definitely an omission, and one which leads the reader to think that the word is an imperative thereby misleading the reader.

I'm not sure there should be any confusion there - as I noted above, if the clause stood alone, one would no doubt take it as a direct command such as: "Search the Scriptures!" and "Ye search the Scriptures!" But that verse is not a "command" even without the pronoun whether in Greek or English; and it makes perfect sense when read in context. This was why I appreciated Bastage's observation earlier and it turned out that he connected it with verse 40 to see that it was not a command. I think that when we slice these things so particularly, that is where we begin to get them all mixed up - and my point is that even when read in English without the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence, it is not a command.

Pastor AIO:

even though both words are translated as You search, in fact they are two very different things. Zeteite means you search and look for something or someone that is not present.  Ereunate means you investigate, probe, examine, search through.  the object you are searching through is very much present it is a matter of investigating it.  I used a text as an example of something that you ereunate.  You can also search/investigate/ereunate the heart, and also ereunate/examine/investigate the deep things of God.  If you zeteite your text then that means you've lost the text and you are looking for it everywhere, under the table, on the shelf, in your bag  . . . where can that text be?  Yet when you are ereunate the text that means the text is right there in your hands and you are probing into it.

I don't see much difference in what I offered earlier. However, between those two words in Greek, where used, they do not lead the reader to the idea that John 5:39 without the pronoun was indicative of a "command".

Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

What is going on in the pentecostal movement is in effect the raising of the bible to the level of Diety, Jesus himself. You'll hear statements that the bible is Jesus in writing etc. It is for this reason that discussions such as these are very important and I'm quite glad that we're having it.

Lol, but Pastor, I don't think anyone in this thread has decended so low as to deify the Bible and make it 'Jesus', has there?

cocoman4u:

@pilgrim 1
Yes it actually sound like a command, suggestion, or imperative when you say, "search the scriptures."

Since we are deviating from the real issue let me show how thi started. The guy that posted that verse tried to use it to suggest that Jesus encouraged us to search the scriptures. Here is what the guy posted:

This is justcool's reply:
And here is pilgrim 1's reply:
By the question that pilgrim 1 asked above you can see that she was argueing in the favour of the notion that Jesus encouraged us to read the scriptures. But leter she changed her stance and capitalized on the command.

First, I did not change anything, please. It may seem so to you, but I did not.

Second, I noted early in my rejoinder that there was nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures - even Jesus expounded the matters concerning Himself from the same when He discoursed with His disciples (Luke 24:44-45).

Third, I just pointed out above the reason why some may regard John 5:39 as a "command", and there is no reason for this unless the person reading it so was looking at the first part of that sentence as a stand alone clause, such as: "Search the Scriptures!" or "Ye search the scriptures!" Either way, if they stood alone, it definitely would sound like a command - but we know that is not the case.

and y'all forgot chris

@cocoman4u,

To "encourage" someone to do something, does that equate to "commanding" that person to do that thing?

I think that we would get a lot further if we conducted this conversation in Cantonese, or Urdu because right now I don't think that I even understand Pilgrim's english anymore. Anyway, I've said what I have to say on the subject and it is out there for all who are interested to read it. If you get something from it, good for you, if you don't then too bad. Bye bye people.

ps. before I go, why hasn't image 123 who started the whole John 5:39 fiasco returned to contribute to the debate?

Pastor AIO:

I think that we would get a lot further if we conducted this conversation in Cantonese, or Urdu because right now I don't think that I even understand Pilgrim's english anymore. Anyway, I've said what I have to say on the subject and it is out there for all who are interested to read it. If you get something from it, good for you, if you don't then too bad. Bye bye people.

Pretty much same here. Enjoyed yours all the way.

Pastor AIO:

ps. before I go, why hasn't image 123 who started the whole John 5:39 fiasco returned to contribute to the debate?

Lol, Pastor AIO. . I may not speak for anyone; but I don't think Image123 wanted a 'fiasco', just as it doesn't seem justcool has come back to set us straight on what he started.

All the same, enjoy.

pilgrim.1:

@cocoman4u,

To "encourage" someone to do something, does that equate to "commanding" that person to do that thing?

You still have not answered the question. The question is:
In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not?

I want a yes or no answer

In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not?

I believe not. It takes it as read that one is already studying the scripture. So no.

@ pilgrim.
This has obviously descended well into the realms of semantics. But I would like to bring up a point I feel is pertinent.

A command is an order. We agree on that, yes?
But what about an admonishment or a warning? Wouldn't you say that it carries as much weight if the deliverer bears the same authority and if the purpose of the warning is to only bring about one end result?
I think that there's a claim to be made that in this particular scenario of John 5:39 a warning/admonishment is pretty indistiguishable from a command.

Let me give you an example:

I warn you not to cross a busy road blindfolded.
I order you not to cross a busy road blindfolded.

Although the first implies that you have a choice, if you are aware of the consequences of crossing the road blindfolded, do you really have any choice but to heed that warning? In this case, it's therefore no different from an order. Choice is implied but you have no option but to obey.

@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:

You still have not answered the question. The question is:
In John 5:39 did Jesus encourage us to search the scriptures or not?

I want a yes or no answer

Is the word "encourage" the same as a "command"? Id I make that verse a command anywhere? If I did, please kindly quote where I did so.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

@ pilgrim.
This has obviously descended well into the realms of semantics. But I would like to bring up a point I feel is pertinent.

I agree. It's sad that those who have been arguing to the effect of a "command" have refused to note the fact I already from the onset stated clearly that the verse was NOT a command! I wonder how many times I have to state that in simple terms before they see it as plainly.

Bastage:

A command is an order. We agree on that, yes?

Yes.

Bastage:

But what about an admonishment or a warning? Wouldn't you say that it carries as much weight if the deliverer bears the same authority and if the purpose of the warning is to only bring about one end result?

No, I wouldn't say so - for the reasons you outlined succinctly below as regards a choice:

Bastage:

I think that there's a claim to be made that in this particular scenario of John 5:39 a warning/admonishment is pretty indistiguishable from a command.

Well, I appreciate your perspective; however, I do not see that verse as pointing to a command. Would it be pointing to a warning/admonishment? Again, I am not persuaded that may be the case. It does not appear that He would be warning them to search the Scriptures; and that was why in reference to the other few verses I cited to compare (such as John 7:52), it would seem that He rather held out a challenge to them.

Bastage:

Let me give you an example:

I warn you not to cross a busy road blindfolded.
I order you not to cross a busy road blindfolded.

Although the first implies that you have a choice, if you are aware of the consequences of crossing the road blindfolded, do you really have any choice but to heed that warning? In this case, it's therefore no different from an order. Choice is implied but you have no option but to obey.

That's an example that may be appreciated in its own context; but I deem that it is not the case in John 5:39. In the first place, I don't think even if taken together with verse 40, Jesus would be "ordering" or "commanding" them to search the Scriptures - that's what they had been doing all along (compare their pride highlighted in John 7:49 where they assumed a superiority over those they accused of not knowing the law). I don't think that is the sense there; and taken with His custom to address the Jews in that regard, He was not "ordering" them to do so (IMO).

It does not appear that He would be warning them to search the Scriptures

My point is that it's exactly the opposite. It's a warning not to put all of one's faith in Scripture. edit Just looking back I can see one of Pastor's posts explaining why not.
Now, taking into account that the warnee is Christ and that the result of not heeding that warning is to miss Him, can that not be interpeted as a command of sorts? He's not really giving you any option in this one - it's "Ignore me and you miss me". "Get too engrossed in the fine print and you won't see the main contract". Knowing those are the consequences, does a devotee of Christ really have a choice?

So in, my opinion, this could be seen as a command. But the opposite to the one in the quotation above.

Personally, I'm not too hung up about the semantic side of things on this one and I like to stick by my original interpretation. I look at it as "I'm OK with the warning and that's enough for me to try to heed it".

edit Just looking back through this thread (I'm lazy and have to admit to even now not reading everything in it) I can see one of Pastor's posts talking about not deifying Scripture. I reckon that's another pretty good argument as to why the warning is there.

@Bastage,

I should agree absolutely with you on this one:

Bastage:

My point is that it's exactly the opposite. It's a warning not to put all of one's faith in Scripture.
Now, taking into account that the warnee is Christ and that the result of not heeding that warning is to miss Him, can that not be interpeted as a command of sorts? He's not really giving you any option in this one - it's "Ignore me and you miss me". "Get too engrossed in the fine print and you won't see the main contract". Knowing those are the consequences, does a devotee of Christ really have a choice?

I think it should be fair that we do not hold on to just a linear understanding or perspective on this matter. Yes, sometimes I tend to miss the essence in what you had tried to convey because I didn't see it as a "command"; not until you helped me see the perspective in which you conveyed that matter. I was having my eyes as well on those whom He addressed, for they were actually not His devotees - they were actually the very people that opposed Him (for which reason it did not seem in context that He would address them as if He were ordering them to search the Scriptures).

Anyhow, my appreciation again for taking the time to share.

Cheers.

Quote from: Pastor AIO on Yesterday at 08:36:18 PM
ps. before I go, why hasn't image 123 who started the whole John 5:39 fiasco returned to contribute to the debate?

Lol, Pastor AIO. . I may not speak for anyone; but I don't think Image123 wanted a 'fiasco', just as it doesn't seem justcool has come back to set us straight on what he started.

All the same, enjoy.

lol
As pilgrim.1 has said, I didn't mean it as a debate.I replied I think on page 8 but maybe you were busy battling wit greek.Kunle asked if the Scriptures were still relevant to Christ’s followers. That was what I answered to by quoting about 5 passages that suggested that the scriptures were still relevant.Unfortunately,the other 4 passages quoted were thrown aside and you guys started giving lectures on John 5.
Meanwhile the crux of the verse itself attests to it that the scriptures are relevant.Jesus said "they testify of me".Same verse!search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.If something bears witness/testifies/or has some truth to say about Christ, i think its reason that followers of Christ would want to look at such a witness, a more sure word of prophecy.Unfortunately,it seems many are just more focused on criticising one version or the whole of the various translations as a whole. I suggest that if they feel that they can give us a better translation,then go ahead.There's really no point criticizing the word on ground.I can assure you,it Works.People are getting saved and blessed and transformed by reading the Bible(s) daily.It seems God is not that concerned with the "inaccuracies" as many are.Talk about crying more than the bereaved.He backs up/certifies the Word with signs following.I think thats the substance that we should hold on to, not just busy ourselves and the pages of nairaland chasing shadows.God be with you.

Image123:

lol
As pilgrim.1 has said, I didn't mean it as a debate.I replied I think on page 8 but maybe you were busy battling wit greek.Kunle asked if the Scriptures were still relevant to Christ’s followers.

Another lie!!!!! I never at any point in this thread asked if the scriptures was still relevant to christ's followers. Please don't quote me out of context.

Hi KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

Another lie!!!!! I never at any point in this thread asked if the scriptures was still relevant to christ's followers. Please don't quote me out of context.

Calm down. Granted, and we don't want anyone to be quoted out of context. Although Image123 did not quote the part that might be indicating this, but please bear in mind that this is the way some people tend to have read what you had said previously (post #165):

KunleOshob:
How relevant is the old testment doctrine to christian living today?

There are a lot of others who have asked me that very thing, and I didn't refer to it at all, because my reply to them was that it is not in my place to interprete anything for anyone until they make themselves clear. This does not mean that you categorically asked that question; but from the above quote in yours, that is how several people had read it to mean.

Anyhow, enjoy your day - no need to be so upset.

pilgrim.1:

Hi KunleOshob,

Calm down. Granted, and we don't want anyone to be quoted out of context. Although Image123 did not quote the part that might be indicating this, but please bear in mind that this is the way some people tend to have read what you had said previously (post #165):

There are a lot of others who have asked me that very thing, and I didn't refer to it at all, because my reply to them was that it is not in my place to interprete anything for anyone until they make themselves clear. This does not mean that you categorically asked that question; but from the above quote in yours, that is how several people had read it to mean.

Anyhow, enjoy your day - no need to be so upset.

Thanx for bring up the relevant post pilgrim.1, i still stand by that post becuase it is quite obvious that most of the old testament doctrines based mainly on Mosaic laws(613 of them) are not relevant or being applied to christianity today (why have them in the bible). Or have you come across any christian church carring out sacrificial burn offerings which was very common in the old testament times. Even though there are useful lessons to be learnt in the old testament these lessons are being abused and treated as doctrine for christians even though it is not relevant to them, an example of this that readily comes to mind is the obsolete doctrine of tithes which was never directed at new testament christians and is popularly being preached today in churches. We have to be able to distinguish between Judaism and christianity which we profess and not allow preachers to take advantage of "our ignorance". I believe all the teachings we need to live good christian lives can be found in the new testament and that a lot of what we read in th old testament not only contradicts christian beliefs it causes confusion and misleads christians. It also easily allows scripture to be manipulated and difficult to understand