Well if you followed that particular conversation, you would have seen the proper context. We're NOT talking about replacement theology.
ECT The "Church" at Acts 2 Was Not the Body of Christ
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Well if you followed that particular conversation, you would have seen the proper context. We're NOT talking about replacement theology.
I see your basic problem being referring to the KJV first of all.
It definitely is, and just because you misrepresent the Greek text with the wrong connotations, doesn't change a thing. Let's just agree that the Bible has already been properly translated by credentialed and professional Greek scholars. I can't say the same for YOU. BTW would you use the same rational for looking at 2 Cor 3:14 (NIV), where it says OLD COVENANT?
You are being disingenuous at best here Jerry.
The Greek here and everywhere in the NT, connotes a testamentary disposition, a will, a covenant of God with men.
Please deal with each verse on it's own, so others don't get lost in the onerousness of this post.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You deal with what I said by using the Scriptures. When we look further we can see that the words "the ministry of the New Diateke" refers to the gospel.
"Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord" (2 Cor.4:1-4).
Paul's words "this ministry" are obviously pointing back to the "ministry" of 2 Cor.3:6 and it is evident that his words "this ministry" are in regard to the "manifestation of the truth," the preaching of "Christ Jesus the Lord"-- "the glorious gospel of Christ."
Albert Barnes wrote the following commentary on 2 Corinthians 4:1:
"Seeing we have this ministry - The gospel ministry, so much more glorious than that of Moses 2 Corinthians 3:6; which is the ministry by which the Holy Spirit acts on the hearts of people 2 Corinthians 3:8; which is the ministry of that system by which people are justified 2 Corinthians 3:9; and which is the ministry of a system so pure and unclouded, 2 Corinthians 3:9-11, 2 Corinthians 3:18" (Barnes's Notes on the Bible; Commentary at 2 Corinthians 4:1).
In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary we read: "seeing we have this ministry 'The ministration of the Spirit' (2Co 3:8, 9): the ministry of such a spiritual, liberty-giving Gospel: resuming 2Co 3:6, 8" (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Commentary at 2 Corinthians 4:1).
The only thing you have said about this translation is that it cannot be trusted because it comes from the King James Version of the Bible.
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (diatheke); not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor.3:6; KJV).
You said:
What are your credentials in the Greek language? How do you know that the KJV is in error?
More obfuscation Jerry. It is the NEW COVENANT. You keep trying to change it to something it doesn't say and regardless of how you try to deflect to this latest rabbit trail, it's NOT the issue I dealt with.
I don't have any nor do I need any. The modern English versions are well done and I know how to use resources that refute people like you who fallaciously assert things that are NOT factual.
It is a well know fact that the KJV has many errors, and that people don't know how to use the vernacular it is done in.
Daniel B. Wallace if one of the pre-eminent Greek scholars of our day, and he is just one of many that can show why we should NOT be using the KJV for Biblical studies.
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Right Divider
Body part
r
I have been TRYING to follow. Your message has been quite CONFUSED.
Then why don't you explain my misunderstanding of THAT post.
I have been TRYING to follow. Your message has been quite CONFUSED.
The amateur always finds this or that is a poor translation and or what have you as to one KJV passage or another.
Whenever I read or hear of someone with years as a pre-eminent this or that, I am reminded of Hebrews 5's "we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of
strong meat.
13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
The Lord found Himself at odds with such "pre-eminent" men also.
Cross Reference
New member
Very true. I found the link wanting; devoid of the understanding of Spiritual guardianship. Amateurish, indeed __ esp. the 1John passage.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you deny that one of the meanings of diatheke is last will and testament:
What about this translation:
"For where a testament (diatheke) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament (diatheke) is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb.9:16-17).
Dean Alford wrote that "It is quite vain to deny the testamentary sense of 'diatheke' in this verse....I believe it will be found that we must at all hazards accept the meaning of 'testament,' as being the only one which will in any way meet the plain requirement of the verse" [emphasis added] (Alford, The Greek Testament, IV:173, 174; cf. the renderings of ASV, RSV).
Zane C. Hodges writes that the author of Hebrews "treated the Greek word for 'covenant' (diatheke) in the sense of a will. While 'covenants' and 'wills' are not in all respects identical, the author meant that in the last analysis the New Covenant is really a testamentary disposition. Like human wills, all the arrangements are secured by the testator and its beneficiaries need only accept its terms" [emphasis added] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing 1983], p.802).
Scott Murray wrote that "the sense of 'last will and testament' was the primary and most prevalent meaning of the word 'diatheke' in Hellenistic Greek" (Murray, "The Concept of Diatheke in the Letter to the Hebrews," Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 66:1, Jan., 2002, p.54-55).
Do you think that these respected commentators on the Bible are correct or not?.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Who are you to call others amateur?
Only an amateur would not know the meaning of the following verse:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).
Since you have no understanding of that verse it is evident that you do not even understand the basic teaching found in the NT is regard to the purpose of the Cross.
You need to leave this forum and go read the Bible because you are clueless.
How can I possibly explain YOUR misunderstanding? If you believe I said something that justified your response then quote it and I'll deal with it. I KNOW the difference between what the topic of this thread is and 'replacement theology'.
Slamming knowledgeable men of God for your own self aggrandizement is nothing more than that. IF you have an actual point to make then make about the content of the link then email Prof Wallace and I'm sure he will deal with you. Meanwhile we can safely accept this scholar's exposition as valid and of good authority, unlike yours. The Lord NEVER found Himself at odds with truly knowledgeable men, just hypocrites.
See post 291 for my response to you as well.
Cross Reference
New member
What qualifies him, in your 'eyes', for you to say he is "knowledgeable"? I have read all that before and not from him.
I wonder what his understanding Gal 2:20 might be __ or your's, for that matter?
That is 400 year old vernacular Jerry, that is NOT relevant today.
Whether the modern English translations are 'functionally', or 'formally' equivalent, most of them use "will" in the context of Heb 9:16-17 (NIV), and if they don't then they use words that most people do NOT equivocate about. The context determines the connotations, NOT the reverse.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb 9:16-17&version=NIV;NET;NRSV;ISV;ESV
The fact that you cite (improperly I might add, as His name was Henry Alford and he was a Dean of Canterbury) a book that is over 100 years old to support your antiquated view out of the KJV, means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It is fine to clarify connotations from the Greek, but ONLY if you actually use the proper connotation and understand the Greek and the flow of it in the particular passage you are dealing with. In this regard, you obviously do NOT. IMO, Hodges was skewed in his RT beliefs, so the only one I lend ANY credence to is Murray, but not, as he says that this connotation was the most prevalent in the NT. In any event, his comment refutes your attempt at making it mean what you want it to.
Well I definitely know more than the first two, as they are dead and in the context of what I already stated about Murray, what you cited is fine.
Try having your own POV and defend it Jerry. You seem to rely way to much on other authors, most of who are dead!
His peer reviews and what I have read from him.
The fact that you don't appear to know him only shows your limit of your knowledge to RT dogma and not exegesis of God's Word.
I have no idea what his POV in on Gal 2:20 (NIV), and it is not the topic we are dealing with here, so I suggest you start your own thread on it.
Cross Reference
New member
Knowledge, and I don't think you see at all you just like trolling.
Obviously then, but feel free to learn something.
http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/
The OP isn't about that and as I was addressing the OP, it was in context. IF you want to defend the KJV, so start your own thread and I'll be more than happy to rip you apart, metaphorically of course.
What does Erasmus have to do with 1 John 5:7-8 (NIV)?
OIC, you just have some of their confused dogmas on tap?
Cross Reference
New member
Rip me apart, eh? You indeed, think too highly of yourself, Bunky.
Cross Reference
New member
Yeah, I know. It's your alter ego.