madegreatbygrace:

With this understanding, John 3:5 can be rephrased thus :
"Verily verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water which is the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Kobojunkie:
And when you say water, you literally mean water, right? You mean wherever Jesus Christ referred to the Spirit of God living on the inside of us, He meant to say that water would live on the inside of us?
When Jesus Christ said He would send a Helper who would comfort us, direct us, guide us, counsel us, lead us to all Truth, He, Jesus Christ, was simply saying that water would direct us, guide us, counsel us, and lead us to all Truth that is Jesus Christ? [b][/b][quote]

1 John 5 vs 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ— not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth.

1 John 5 vs 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. This is the One who came by water, Jesus Christ— not by water alone, but by water. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this because the Spirit is the truth.

madegreatbygrace:
Look up the meaning of typology in the English dictionary

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

hoopernikao:

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.

hoopernikao:

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.

[quote author=hoopernikao post=91004003]

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.

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.

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?

[quote author=hoopernikao post=91015761]

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:
When does "kai" explain a preceding noun?

We need a little bit of grammar to unravel the Granville Sharp rule, especially copulative conjunctions, which is also known as additive conjunctions. Copulative conjunctions are words that join other words and indicate the relation of an additional information. Examples are "and", moreover, and "also". Also, "the" is the only definite article in English language.


The Granville Sharp rule states that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person or thing, and those two nouns are joined by copulative conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second ( or the definite article precedes the second noun but not the first), then both nouns refer to the same thing or person.

As an illustration, consider the sentence:

Yesterday, I saw the founder and the sponsor of the city football club, Mr. Columbus.

The definite article "the" is used twice, before both founder and sponsor. It's clear that Mr. Columbus is founder from the statement above, but the sponsor could be a different person.
Thus, it is not certain if Mr. Columbus is both the founder and the sponsor of the football club.

However, this uncertainty is eliminated in the following reconstruction:

Yesterday, I saw the founder and sponsor of the city football club, Mr. Columbus.

In this case, the definite article “the” is used once, before the first noun. Therefore, Mr. Columbus is both founder and sponsor of the city football club.

In summary, The Granville Sharp rule can be stated as-

Definite article + singular noun + copulative conjunction + singular noun= the same person or thing.

Or in some cases-

singular noun + copulative conjunction + definite article + singular noun = the same person or thing.

We’ll now begin to apply this rule to some Bible verses that are often erroneously taught or understood.

“John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Notice here that the noun "fire" is not preceded by "the". Therefore, The Holy Ghost and fire mean the same thing.
Fire is a figure of the purification of sin.

hoopernikao:


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.

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.

hoopernikao:
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.

hoopernikao:
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?

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

hoopernikao:
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.

hoopernikao:
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:
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.

hoopernikao:

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.

hoopernikao:
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.

hoopernikao:
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.

hoopernikao:

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:
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.

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)

madegreatbygrace:
[[]quote author=hoopernikao post=91030429]

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.[/b]




To make it worse, scholars don't just translate the Bible, they also interpret.

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.

hoopernikao:


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.

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.

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.

hoopernikao:


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.

hoopernikao:


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.

I know sir... Like I tried to clarify at the end of my write-up, I was pretty sure you already knew most of what I was saying but I just wanted to state somethings explicitly for others who might misinterpret one or two things. I personally believe people need to be able to trust their Bible.

[quote]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

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.

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.

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:

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.

That's the spirit brother. I love you.

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