jamesid29:


PS: I understand one or two languages well enough but greek is not one of them as I don't have any formal training in it. Everything I know is things I've picked up here and there. Just wanted to make that clear so I don't pass across the wrong impression

Okay.
I will have to leave this out so as to avoid us leaving the core of the discussion here.

TATIME:


There are people you just ignore since their comments doesn't warrant any response.
Jesus sent his followers out to make disciples of people and to baptise them, if they don't know the disciples face to face how are they going to teach them by examples what Jesus commanded? Are they also going to be baptized online?
Baptism is the public declaration that helps believers identify themselves, so if you're not baptized in the presence of fellow believers how will they recommend you as a true Christian?
Please some just feel like talking so there is no need responding to them, it's like attending to every barking dog on your way to work, surely you'll never get to work in time!

True.

jamesid29:

This is not really true sir or atleast is an oversimplification of the facts.
To be fair there are Bible translations that are purely interpretative in nature like Message translation (Free translation), but the vast majority of translations fall into the dynamic equivalent or literal translation segment ,which try to translate the biblical text as close to the original as possible (albeit to various degree of accuracy).
The goal of translators is to translate(not interpret) the text most especially important with the literal versions like ESV NASB etc. it's true dynamic equivalent might try to give more clarity by using more of a thought-for-thought approach, but we won't call that interpretation in the way most people understand the word interpretation. For instance,where the text literally says "man" but in context was referring to humans in general, a dynamic equivalent translation might use the word "humanity" to remove ambiguity.

Note firstly, that what is being address is not about not seeing Jesus in study or God speaking through his word. That is a given when you feed on scripture.

But this is not a leeway to ignore the text meaning or interpretation. When a text is given a different meaning from its original intent, it naturally looses its inspiration. Why? The readers perception is affected. Your proper understanding of the scriptures is a factor in your proper understanding of God and Christ.


Secondly, Every form of translations are interpretation in themselves. If you ask a translator in any field, you will be told.

Now to the bible, only few translations adhere strictly to almost word for word translation. Mostly are adjusted due to language barrier. Hence you cannot absolve any translation of interpretation.

This language barrier naturally impose on you to take a stand and interpret. Interpret here will mean, you deciding based on your knowledge the best word that fits a passage.

Let me give you and example.

The word en in Greek have variety meaning in English. En can be by, in, with etc.

When a translator see such word, he will be the one to decide what fits. Now the challenge is, this works well for text that are clear. But this can affect readers mind for text that aren't.

John 1:1 En arche. In the beginning

Using IN is here is quite clear as using BY or WITH won't flow.

BY the beginning
WITH the beginning

So best word is IN

Now see the case of 1 Corinthians 14 where translators used IN and WITH interchangeable where the word EN occurred.

Paul used EN laleo glossa at several places.

Now, translator will have to interpret which.

Vs 16
16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit...

Vs 19

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.


In the two cases above, we have same word EN.
The choice of the translator carries a lot of weight in English which has led to many misinterpretation and wrong expression

KJV opt for WITH and IN respectively. That is a choice of the translator. And that simply is interpretative.

I could have used BY in both texts or use IN in both or use WITH in both and they will all still make sense in English. But mostly likely different meaning to the reader.

There are several cases of such.


Note also, that by the virtue of presenting bible in chapters and verses alone is interpretive in nature. The original weren't. This is one of the root of many wrong revelation and teaching today. It gives room to lifting scriptures out of its context and use.

So, even though the translator will put all best to get as near as possible to the original language. It's word will still be at best a form of interpretation. This doesn't make their work feeble but only inform the reader to be cautious.

jamesid29:

Just to chip in a bit, I believe JMAN05 is correct here sir.
One of the limitations of the rule is that the article has to precede the first noun in the actual greek text and not just the translation.

If you read my post again. I didn't address the rule. I addressed the word usage and meaning it carried.

Secondly, as I stated earlier, the usage of the article in Greek are premised on word construction and it's word type. Sharp rule gave cases for the base words not the inflexions. Hence inflexion are translated to base case to apply sharp rule.

Have you checked all text the word was used. That will be key to get what am saying.

Kobojunkie:
I am not one to advocate for anything. Jesus Christ's follower are being led by the Spirit of God to do that which Jesus Christ wants. If Jesus Christ commanded that we not remotely communicate His gospel to anyone, then what Jesus Christ says is what I advocate we do. Who are we to say no to the Almighty Everlasting God of Heaven and Earth?

I have read the letters written by the Apostles, and at least I have never seen any of their actual faces. Those letters preach to us to this day... yet we have never met them.

Secondly, I have noticed how you have been reading Paul's letter or intent wrongly. You will need to properly study and understand the church work established in the scriptures.

Your queries aren't reflective of even Christ teachings. I once told you about importance of understanding language and grammar but you said it isn't necessary. But note this will always affect your view and understanding of the scriptures.

For example: All you write up there simply show that you don't actually understand what a disciple is. When Jesus said "make disciples of all nations".

The fact use of the word disciple in Greek should inform you that it requires learning by precept and by examples. A disciple must see and do.

Paul wrote in many of his letters about such examples.

Phil 4:9
Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

To learn, received, heard, seen do same. That is discipleship.

2 Timothy 3:14
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

The word learn is not book or read, it means to learn by USE and PRACTICE. It is seen in you. How is it seen? online? No. It is seen in your conduct, to the end that it shows up the good works (not online)

Vs 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Good works are to be seen, not typed.

Vs 16 used the word "instruct". It is the word for education. Just the way you will nurture a child. I am sure you don't breast milk online, do you?

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

The word follower is the word mimites like what we have as mimic.

It means to copy all I do. It is a word use for robot. To follow exact example. Notice he said follow me, he didn't say follow Christ like you always say .

Why did he say that? Because he is the good example they see. Hence following such examples will mean following Christ.

Good examples arent to be typed online. They are to be seen, observed and copied, presence known.

1 Timothy 4:12
12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

Example in words, conversation, love, spirit, faith, purity.

Those examples must be seen not typed Sir.

---

You read Paul's letters today because there were eye witnesses attesting to his examples. Those who met and saw him never wrote bad about his examples, the apostles commended him. He wrote about his good examples too. So you not meeting him but follow him is premised on such testimony.

His testimony was not hidden behind keyboards or giving by online warriors but men on ground who related with him physically.


Lastly, note, any spirit that leads, speaks or acts contrary to this is not the spirit of God, and don't forget there are many spirits these days. We may not know how close one is

Kobojunkie:
I am not one to advocate for anything. Jesus Christ's follower are being led by the Spirit of God to do that which Jesus Christ wants. If Jesus Christ commanded that we not remotely communicate His gospel to anyone, then what Jesus Christ says is what I advocate we do. Who are we to say no to the Almighty Everlasting God of Heaven and Earth?

Now we know that Jesus Christ, our Master, and Lord, never insisted that all preaching was to be done face-2-face. So why in the world is this even a thing worth debating?
Paul's letter to the Romans was not a follow-up. It preceded his visit to Rome. Also, not everyone who read the actual letters that were sent by the apostles met the writers face-2-face.
I have read the letters written by the Apostles, and at least I have never seen any of their actual faces. Those letters preach to us to this day... yet we have never met them.

You will need to start reading patiently when a post is made. I have told you earlier, trying to make a distinction especially when it has no basis is a dangerous path.

Secondly. State in clear terms, that I may know you and your conviction.

Can a minister be an online minister without having a physical ministry work to point to. Should a minister be a perpetual e-discipler without a taking physical ministry seriously.

That is what the OP approached. Hence approach that.

JMAN05:


I think you are missing something, or perhaps you put me through.

Sharp's rule apply

1. When the object of discreption refers to persons, not things.

2. When the definite article precedes the first noun, not second noun. (Pls post the full rule. When I checked, I didn't see the rule apply to the second noun).

However, when I checked, the definite article didn't even appear before any of the nouns in John 3:5. (Check interlinear)

The word used there is pneumatos, it is an inflexion of pnuema. When pneumatos is used it is always expressed with the article "the" in landing language whether present or absent in the transiting language.

It must always be used in a definite term.
Hence when you see the word spirit pnuematos it usually translated as "of the spirit" or just "the spirit" when the article is absent.

Hence when the article is absent it will still be added in the landing language due to the grammatical functions of the word.

You can check other places it is used in the bible.

Kobojunkie:

Hiding behind a podium? Was Paul, and the other disciples hiding behind their letters when they sent them out to the many churches, reaching many who now believe that never met them?

Jesus Christ never set such requirements for His apostles. Why do you now think it your place to do so?
I don't believe Satan necessarily hides his identity when pushing his deceipt. The Bible says he appeared to Jesus Christ to tempt Him,Jesus. Sure, Jesus Christ, through His Spirit leads us to reach people face to face, when that is necessary. But nothing stops the same Spirit of God from leading us to respond to posts on web forums, chat rooms either. Jesus Christ never set a restriction as far as the medium by which we can reach those He wants for us to preach His word to, so where the Spirit leads, we ought to follow.

Did you have to see Paul's face to believe his testimony that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ? Have you seen the face of any of the disciples who you read about in the Bible?

Are you advocating for online pastoring and teaching without haven't a physical ministry on ground by the same person?

And mind you. All Paul's letters are follow up letters on work that has been done earlier and still ongoing. They are likewise not written to strangers.

TATIME:


It's an insult on the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for any of his worshipers to beg for financial assistance from pagans! Psalms 23:1

So i only corrected the misinformation in her comment!

Nah wah o

Kobojunkie:
Shakespeare's books were also translated to today's English by Scholars, and the opinion of the translators is what many of us read today as well.
Wrong that reading Shakespeare, even as it is available today, does not make me a Shakespeare scholar or a Shakespeare student.?
Or wrong that I don't seek the opinion of Bible Scholars when I read the Bible, and that remains the case. I simply use the comprehension skills I already have when dissecting the meaning contained in language, any language I am fluent in?
So, yes that is why I am a follower of Jesus Christ, not the Bible, or your so-called Bible Scholars.

I read my Bible as I would any other book out there because the bible is itself not the word of God, sorry! ;DI am not a bible student. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

It is well with you.

TATIME:


Please learn the lesson in this dreadful conditions of yours, you are not a Christian!

Let me tell you how Christians operates.
When a Christian in Togo have such a case and those living there aren't buoyant enough to help, they will contact their brothers in Nigeria or South Africa or better still America. Because they're all brothers in Christ, so the surplus of those living in Lekki supposed to be of help to those living in my village! 2Corinthians 8:14

The one and only organization practicing this is Jehovah's Witnesses!
But this is not the time for such discussion let's leave it till a more convenient time!

You owe that lady an apology. There is no need trying to argue on this. Whatever your view about a person, you shouldnt go that way you and your folks thread. Religion or doctrine doesn't take the humanity away from us, it rather reveal the true humanity in us in Christ.

Simply, apologise to her. No exegesis, interpretation, congregation or revelation can sweep this away or support such actions.

Whether she is a Christian or non Christian is not the issue here and replying her based in her hurt won't do you good.

Simply apologize to her. That is Christiany

engreddy:


Isn't it hypocrisy to accuse others of what you are guilty of?

Who knows you? What is your name? What is your picture? What is your lifestyle and behavior? Where do you live? What you posted up there, is it not preaching? If you are not hiding behind a forum, why don't you provide your pictures and Facebook name? Isn't nairaland a faceless forum, if it is not, why did you not put your face in it?

Hypocrite in the name of Christ

Is there any issue with what the guy wrote up there? It's a general statement and those that it applies to will know themselves. Different view of doctrine shouldn't be taken as eternal war or hatred whereby we see no good in what others do.

Ministry is on ground, in the field, mostly on your legs sef not online. That is all he was trying to point out. At least he was decent enough not to mention any name or denomination.

MRosario:
He needs to spend some quality time behind bars...

I believe this absolutely.

Kobojunkie:
It means just what I said. I am not a bible student. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
Well, that I read Shakespeare does not make me a Shakespeare scholar, nor does it make me a Shakespeare student.

Anywho, I don't study the Bible ALONE as far as learning about Jesus Christ is concerned. In fact, the very first book God directed me to in response to my earlier questions about Christianity was not the Bible. No, it was an old book on the history of Christianity.
So, yes, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, not the Bible, or your so-called Bible Scholars.
You are the one making an issue out of my statements, not I.
You are free to pretend it is your place to tell me whether my response about who I am is right or wrong but my truth remains that... my truth. I am not a Bible scholar. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
Correction. I don't seek the opinion of Bible Scholars when I read the Bible, and that remains the case. I simply use the comprehension skills I already have when dissecting the meaning contained in language, any language I am fluent in.

Lol.

You will need to read again and again what you wrote, then hopefully someday you can correct it.

The bible in your hand that you read is translated and interpreted by scholars. You said you dont seek the opinion of scholars when you read the bible. Truly, you cant and dont need to, because their opinion is already fused in what you are reading, their opinion is what is in your hands as English Bible.

Can you see where you are wrong? The bible you read is an opinion of a translator who is a bible scholar who helped you bring the original language to your language premise.
Your comprehension skill is already bounded by what the same scholar you dont seek his opinion wrote for you in English. So, you dont need to seek scholarly opinion, it is already in your hand.

Sadly, when such scholar presents a wrong meaning of words and you read it, you may likely embrace it and say that is what God ministers to you. . The earlier you get this the better Bro. This is not about forcing you or telling you wrong or right.

And on the bold above in your post above, i hope when you read the bible, its like Shakespeare abi? not that you are studying it as the word of God, because if you do the later, then that is called bible study and that makes you a bible students (you study the bible). The earlier we stop creating contradiction in the face of trying to be different the better.

Kobojunkie:


Oh, I am not a Bible student, i just happen to know some of the rules scholars apply whole researching bible texts.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and that is all that matters to me. When it comes to understanding what is written, I don't seek the "wisdom" of Scholars. No, i never do that anymore. I depend on the understanding that is given us all as far as language comprehension is concerned as that seems enough in most all cases.

Firstly, please stop this. What is the meaning of not being a bible student? Stop bringing sentimental talk into discussion. A bible student mean someone who trust and study the bible. Let's stop always having to colorize or dissect what can't be.

What is the meaning of "I am not a Bible student but Jesus follower". How does that sound to you.
It's a statement that lack sincerity.

Jesus that you follow is it not the bible you study to know what he taught? When you study and learn from the bible text what does that makes you? A banana student?

Don't make discussion hard by going the wrong way of argument.

Secondly, you absolutely got it all wrong in your response. Read it again for yourself. You are only making distinction where it doesn't exist.

You said you don't seek scholars opinion yet you read in English, apply English construction to your understanding of the scriptures. When you see "he went", you won't say "he is coming". Language comprehension you have today were work of some scholars ahead of you. Or you think language and construction just dropped from heaven. Like I said, present things sincerely.

Kindly stop such thought, it don't present you well.

Kobojunkie:

What he is referring to? Where did you find that in the @OP's write-up? I didn't ask about Bible scholars. I asked about the meaning in the @Op's assertions regarding what Jesus said or did not say.
Oh, now you are saying this?

He doesnt have to mention a rule for it to be known. Bible student should know the premise of explanation of a subject. When you see a rule applied in literature or language, you should be able to know where it i s coming from. So, OP not stating the name doesnt change the fact that it is drawn from that rule.

Note also that bible student should know rules that guide language of origin of the scriptures. You cant reach an accurate interpretation without proper knowledge of the language. Hence the English bible you read could have been a mess if the translators know nothing about the language construction.

madegreatbygrace:

I understand clearly the Sharp rule. It is also known as the TSKS rule. I wasn't in a rush either. It's just my writing style to present my points bit by bit. Thanks brother.

Okay.

Kobojunkie:
Oh, I understand the meaning of typology. What I don't understand is what you are trying to make happen here.

What he was refering to is called Sharp rule of Greek lexicon by Granville Sharp, likely a bible scholar. It is a widely accepted rule in Greek language construction and usage. And among bible scholars. This has helped in revealing meaning behind many hard bible text due to word construction. You can do a search on it and read his research on bible text.

Though the OP just did a roll-on on the text. It's either he is in a rush to explain or haven't study the rule well itself. Howbeit, by sharp rule and other bible corroboration he is perfectly in order, yet I don't think the OP should initiate a topic he wouldn't explain properly. It cause more harm than good.

Good morning.

@GRIMMJOE

Good evening. And I trust you had a great day.

I am sure my intent for you have been well passed across in all our discussion. We will not need to drag on forever.

And as you said you are a thinker, I am sure that you are and will ponder more on our discussion. I also trust God that you will find a follow up to this in a physical person He will send to you in nearest time.

That things work together and fit together unto this purpose, His purpose. May your quest, steps, free or critical thinking and researches find its final abode in God's eternal purpose in due time.

Amen.

Rozz:
He was sounding like a freethinker that's why I asked which church he attends

Okay.

Well, I always make sure I avoid assuming for people even when their motives seems glaring to me. I prefer someone coming open by himself /herself to declare who he or she is. Sometimes people's words can betray their intentions and not all know how to present their mind in words, likewise not all know how to read our minds via words.

So, the best is to give all benefits of doubt till a person confirms who he is either by absolute stand again God as per discussion or open declaration of what he professes.

Most likely, non of us will want our intentions to be judged wrongly, hence, Time and Patience are the best weapon to reveal people's true intentions no matter how hidden they are.

GRIMMJOE:
Yes you get it, just like the man point of view you just rejected is only an influence, but the final decision is still up to you.

That is choice presented to me. And my choices are limited which I chose from.

GRIMMJOE:
I can only defend the book I wrote, until then it still remains just a book.

Even the book you with write are compendium of other people that influenced you. Stop these denial.

GRIMMJOE:
Well I only thought I should share, I cannot defend another mans words.

You don't need to defend him but his writing summarised the momentarily thought of those against religion especially atheist.

GRIMMJOE:
As you can see you couldn't think for yourself, you had to depend on a book to do it for you.

A man pulling the trigger already know either he dies or he doesn't, you don't need a book to tell you this.

Do you see your error and closeness of mind?

You have said severally that freethinker read, you research a lot. Now, I used bible to show you a point you called it not thinking for yourself. Do you see that's deception? If I have used another book from freethinker you will hail it.

Your influence comes from other places including book, yet you don't see yourself decieving yourself but a man who uses his own trusted book is deceiving himself.

That is why I told you, that at best the thought of a man thinking is subject to his exposure.

This is why I told you people in your line of thoughts are absolutely not objective.

GRIMMJOE:
You think the price of free thinking comes cheap, it's throwing away everything you know and start all over with a open mind, if it was that easy everyone would be a freethinker.

That's why those that have crossed the boundary are longer limited, things like suicide are for people that believe in one fix fallacy.

There is nothing like throwing all away.
Your decision is subjected to influence. Even your thoughts are already influenced before it comes.

GRIMMJOE:
Thought I should share.

If that post refer to Christianity. Then

You can see the summary of ignorance I have been speaking of in just one post. Many speaks on what they knew nothing about.

1. He assumed firstly that Christianity is about doing good or not. Very poor display of knowledge.

2. He assumed that the ability of being able to do good is the solution to human problem. Another illusion.

3. He assumed that religion is the root of human problems.

Looking at his statement, it's obvious the devil has got him exactly where he wants him to be. In self denial and not being able to see clearly.

It is a very dull submission from him.

See this
John 8:12
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life

At the bold.

Light of the world is not speaking about sun. Light means illumination, where light is, you see clearly. Hence light of life is a direction. It is an influence.

The word follow is from the word akoloutheo. It means to follow a path. That speaks about influence.

The word walk is from the word peripateo. It simply means to conduct yourself in a particular way. An influenced conduct.

Hence, light as influence, will determine your actions if you choose it.

The phrase shall not walk in darkness implies to be directed in darkness. That means the illustration here uses darkness as direction and influence also.

So light as influence to life, darkness also as influence also.

The choice of man are limited to this. Light is in a person not in freethinking. That light is what makes all things clear to you whether they are pleasant or not, you can see clearly the reasons for things.

The reason I told you that thinking hard doesn't mean living right or knowing the right thing.

What you should always ask yourself is, what is influencing my decision. This is the critical question.

GRIMMJOE:
If a man shoots himself is either he dies or he doesn't, it's that simple.

What's there not to comprehend.

Does he determine what happened to him afterwards, dies he determine whether he dies or not? His action (shoot the gun) is the only thing he determines still based on influence.

The consequence (from his mind is death) but you just said now that he has options to still live. That means he cant determine his end. He presume his end.

GRIMMJOE:
I didn't mention church again, atheist are free thinkers, any atheist that don't know much about a particular religion before making a decision isn't a freethinker, you can be a freethinker without being an atheist.

That's why you'll never see a freethinker commit suicide because they've weighed all possibility, and will refused to be control by their struggle in life instead find strength in it, see life from a different angle, this can only be done by free thinking, not atheism.

You are funny o. You will never see a free thinker commit suicide .

Suicide doesn't have a religion or tribe. At the base of the actions of suicide is the influence of this world. No legislation, rules, human knowledge can satisfy human's desire nor eradicate humans challenge.

At the base of all humans challenges are influences that control us.

So, whenever you point to crimes, sins, personal destruction don't ever clarify by human type or knowledge. If our actions are truly free, crime as small as simple as stealing would have been eradicated by now. Even with the best minds in the world coming together, no legislation or rules or scientific discovery has been able to eradicate this. WHY? Man is subjected to influences and travail in subjection to mortality of the flesh.

Legislation can only punish, persecute, destroy but can never eradicate the crime because no legislation can get to the root of the influence on humanity, only God can.

GRIMMJOE:
Are you trying to say their are infinite consequence from a man pulling a trigger to his head.
To the extent you can't determine all possible outcome?

Bro, like I told you. Consequences of human actions aren't placed within their limits. Anyway you want to look at it. This is a reality of life. Man only works with what his mind can comprehend but their are more to life than humans mind can comprehend. That is how man was made.

GRIMMJOE:
You're getting good at this, the guy that thought he will only be arrested and jail is not freethinking.

But you just did, I'm sure you'll also free thinking of a better way to solve your financial problems.

This is not so different from a thief steals a cube of sugar but received jungle justices, if that thief was a free thinker, he will be influenced by his cognitive, buy was influenced by his friends calling him armour tank, nobody fit see you.

All you said are still within the limit of choices. And such consequences aren't determined by you. Presumption is not same as realities. You must accept what is true and reconsider your principles.

GRIMMJOE:
And that's why you free think, no stones is left unturned, wonder why some atheist have held their ground for almost 10 years, they have absolutely, critically seen it all.

But that's not all, if tomorrow a new set of religion comes out, believe me I'll be one of the first people running to hear what they have to say, in which at the end of the day I make my decision based on free thinking.

Firstly, what I wrote isn't free but subjected.

Secondly, no atheist is objective in thinking, leave those lyrics. Objectivity is relative.

Whatever an atheist holds is still based on influence he is exposed to. What he calls right are based on what he knows.

I haven't seen any atheist critical in thinking that doesn't accept the truth of the scriptures but only just want to hold his stand for personal reasons.

What you called critical from an atheist is dogmatic that you accuse the church people for too.

Most atheist, firstly are standing on a ground of false teaching they were exposed to before rejecting the religion. The limit of their decision is based on what they were exposed to.

From my survey 98% of atheist I have seen, know nothing about the teaching of the scriptures, yet they claim they know it more than those who preaches it.

Even on literal level of the scriptures not even inspiration of the writing, an atheist usually suspend his thinking and objectivity.

You are a product of your past, present influence, hence a man exposed to wrong doctrine cannot determine a true doctrine because he never knew any.