Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25099 | ||
It seems like every time I hear someone discussing this verse, invariably they leave off the rest of that statement of Paul's (Col.2:16 and 17). Verse 17 explains WHY he said people shouldn't judge others concerning how and when they worship the Lord. "... which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." NKJ Paul knew that true believers no longer needed to look to the shadow... because they looked to the real thing. And according to my concordance the Greek word for "or" is "e", and here is what it says: A prim. particle of distinction between two connected terms; disjuntive, 'or'; comparative, 'than': -- and, but (either), (n) either, except it be, (n) or (else), rather, save, than, what, yea. Often used in connection with other participles. So I don't think we should be saying that word can ONLY be translated "and"... because "or" is just as accurate. It really depends on HOW you want to interpret that verse, which truly should really be left up to the Holy Spirit to give us the correct interpretation instead of being 'led' by the teachings of men. Don't you think? |
||||||
2 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25109 | ||
"It seems like every time I hear someone discussing this verse, invariably they leave off the rest of that statement of Paul's (Col.2:16 and 17)." If you had read my study you would have noted that I dealt with both verses. Right now we are dealing with vs. 16 because some seem to feel that translators can do no wrong. --- "Verse 17 explains WHY he said people shouldn't judge others concerning how and when they worship the Lord. "... which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." NKJ" Nope, coomonly assumed but wrong. Grammatically speaking what Paul is saying that instead of letting outsiders judge you on these things let "the body of Christ" (i.e., the church) decide the matter. --- "Paul knew that true believers no longer needed to look to the shadow..." If he believed that then why did he say that these shadows "are" (present tense)? That'sone of the clues that the common understanding is wrong. --- "And according to my concordance the Greek word for "or" is "e", and here is what it says:" Assuming you are referring to "en brosei kai en posiei" where's the eta? Also it doesn't make sense with an eta in it unless one has allowed the teachings of men to guide you into understanding the verse the way they want it to be understood. |
||||||
3 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25144 | ||
You enjoy semantics, don't you? :) Where did you get your "en", used in that verse -- from which translation or manuscript? Are you a Hebrew scholar? I am not. I have studied it a very little, but I still use a concordance when checking out specific words. Which Bible translation or interpretation do you use? If you have mentioned it, I don't remember. How do you know that YOURS is the perfect model? I use the KJV generally. And the KJV translates the Hebrew "e" as "or" in that verse. You said: If he believed that then why did he say that these shadows "are" (present tense)? My best opinion would be because all of the "shadows" represented by the Feast Days etc. had/have not been fulfilled yet. Example. If we read Daniel's prophecies, and then say "These 'are' prophecies of things to come", does that mean the prophecies automatically refer to something 'today' simply because we use the word "are"? I think verse 16 needs to be read in context, rather than picked apart... which was my point in bringing up the last part of Paul's statement. If you believe (and I'm not sure, so please tell me) that we are to keep a Saturday Sabbath, then using that same verse do you keep the Sabbath, along with the Feast Days of the Lord and the monthly Sabbaths? And by whose lead do you keep them? I mean, does the Lord tell you how to celebrate them now, or do you follow the Old Testament teachings in regard to those celebrations, or has a "teacher" somewhere taught you how to celebrate them? Need to leave... hopefully will talk later. God bless. |
||||||
4 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25186 | ||
What "en"? Do you mean "eta" (or)? The mss used as the base for the KJV (not a strict translation but more of an updating of previous English translations) were few in number and not representative of all that is out there today. We now know with a fair degree of certainty that Paul used the word "kai" which means "and". BTW, Col. 2:16-17 was written in Greek not Hebrew. I use a wide variety of translations and I do not rely on any specific one. I use BibleWorks 4.0 (5.0 just came out; check it out, it is very powerful and has the Greek and the Hebrew so you can call up a verse and scroll over either the Greek or Hebrew word and see what each word means.) Daniel wrote in Hebrew; Paul wrote in Greek. Two totally different languages, letters, words and grammatical rules. You are correct in your quess that some of the festivals have not yet been fulfilled. It has been noted that the spring festivals were predictive of Christ's first coming and that the fall are about His second coming. As I noted in my study there are a number of people who have written about the festivals. My study was not on that aspect per se. It was a grammatical and linguistic analysis of the text. |
||||||
5 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25223 | ||
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how do we now "know with a fair degree of certainty" that Paul used the word "kai"? I'm afraid I still don't understand where you got that from. :) It's late... maybe I need sleep. You said: The mss used as the base for the KJV (not a strict translation but more of an updating of previous English translations) were few in number and not representative of all that is out there today. How many English translations were there before the King James? That is what you're saying isn't it? Since the oldest manuscripts do disagree minutely, how have you decided which one is the "right" one? :) God bless you. PS I know it was Greek, LOL ... and I should have written "kai"! I sure wasn't thinking very well when I wrote that other post. :) Possibly not this one either... please bear with me though, okay? |
||||||
6 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25254 | ||
"... but how do we now "know with a fair degree of certainty" that Paul used the word "kai"? ..." Scholars who have studied the texts have found that the earliest one's had "kai"; also it doesn't make sense to have "eta". --- "How many English translations were there before the King James?" That depends on how far you count it as being English! ;) There was about half a dozen earlier Bibles in English, like Tyndale, Great, and Geneva. If you check into the KJV only theory you'll find the info. |
||||||
7 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25429 | ||
I should have done this in the beginning, but I didn't. So here is the meaning for "kai" from Strong's Concordance. Please note that "kai" can be translated either "and" or "or". KAI means: and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet. So which biblical scholars have claimed that it should be or can only be translated as "and" rather than "or"? And when (approximate year) did these scholars come to this conclusion? Tyndale was the first man to tranlate the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek texts into English. Cloverdale's Bible was taken from Dutch and Latin sources. Roger's Bible was almost wholly copied from Tyndales. And the "Great Bible" was a compilation from Tyndale, Rogers, and Cloverdale. And the Geneva Bible was mainly based on Tyndale's, but with strongly Calvinistic notes. The original KJV in 1611 was extremely similar to Tyndale's translation (1525), even though the 1611 KJV was a revision, it was solely based on Tyndale's work. The KJV of today is an Americanized version of the 1611 KJV. Below is the type of "difference" between Tyndale's Bible, the 1611 KJV, and today's KJV. Tyndale's Bible - Hebrews 11:1: Fayth is a sure confidence off thynges which are hoped for, and a certayntie off thynges which are not sene. 1611 KJV - Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the euidence of things not seen. Americanized KJV - Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And I would also like to note that the original Greek manuscripts that Tyndale used to translate to English, are shown to have used the Greek word "e" which (just like the word "kai") in Col. 2:16, can be translated either "and" or "or". So it would seem that regardless of which original "text" the scholars used to translate into English -- it comes down to their interpretation or understanding of the actual verse, as to whether they translate either of those Greek words to "and" or "or". So which Bible interpretation do you use that states "and" in Col. 2:16?? ... and when and who authored that version? I'm just curious here. Btw, I didn't check into the "KJV only" articles. I checked into each particular Bible to get the information. I didn't want a biased view. Thanks for encouraging me to do so. God bless. |
||||||
8 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25520 | ||
A number (but not all) of your questions are answered in my study at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com. Last I checked it ran over 70 pages so I'm not going to cut-and-paste it all here. Think about the use of "or"--it just doesn't make sense in the context of the whole. |
||||||
9 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25582 | ||
Honestly dconklin... to me "or" makes more sense than "and". But I think I understand where you are coming from. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Do you understand that verse to be speaking of ONE thing, as opposed to multiple things? For instance if "and" is used, then a person could understand that verse to be saying "let no man judge you in [the singular event of] eating, drinking, a festival i.e. new moon, sabbath" because "and" could give one the idea that those things are all joined together into one event. Whereas "or" would separate them, and suggest that Paul was saying "let no one judge you in any one of these things". Is that why you think "and" makes more sense? |
||||||
10 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25658 | ||
Very good! You are actually testing various interpretations! You suggested: "let no man judge you in [the singular event of] eating, drinking, a festival i.e. new moon, sabbath" The only problem here is that you dropped out two items: one, the fitrst "eta" should be translated as "either" and secondly, the the meaning of the Greek "en merei". It means "in part of" as I point out in my study. If I were to re-translate/interpret the Greek of Col.2:16-17 into today's English and take into account all of the available evidence I'd suggest this: "Let no man therefore judge you in your feasting and fasting on the feast days, or the new moons, or the ceremonial sabbath days: 17 These (i.e., the feasting and fasting) are a shadow of things to come; rather let the Church decide such matters." |
||||||
11 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 25685 | ||
Greetings Djconklin! I have two questions regarding your proposed translation. 1) In Col. 2:17, why do you limit the reference of the relative pronoun to only eating and drinking (or in your translation - feasting and fasting)? The best option would seem to be that it refers to all the items listed. In fact, if one were to limit the scope, the best case would be made for limiting it to the sabbath days, since it is the only noun which agrees with the pronoun in both number and gender. If Paul intended for "these" to refer to only the 'eating' and 'drinking', he could have used the femine plural form of the pronoun. 2) I understand that the last clause of Col. 2:17 has no verb, but why do you connect the last clause of Col. 2:17 with the first clause of Col. 2:16, supplying the verb 'judge' and making the body of Christ a reference to the church? It seems that contextually the best choice would be to take it as a contrast with the reality and the shadow, since these are most closely connected. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
12 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25689 | ||
1) This question is answered at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/217b.html 2) This question is answered at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/217d.html |
||||||
13 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 25694 | ||
Greetings Djconklin! Concerning your answers: "1) This question is answered at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/217b.html" I really didn't find an answer in this page. I found five different options. My specific question is how can a neuter plural relative pronoun refer only to the first two elements of a list, when those first two elements are feminine plural nouns? The best options seem to be that: a) "These" refers to all five elements and is neuter because the five nouns are a combination of four feminine nouns and one neuter noun. b) Or, "these" refers to sabbaths, since "sabbaths" agrees with "these" in gender and number. "2) This question is answered at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/217d.html" This answer, as is each option, based on assumption. Unfortuntately, the text doesn't supply any verb in the last clause of Col. 2:17. However, my preference would be that it is associated with the first clause of Col. 2:17. If we only had verse 17 on hand, it would make perfect sense to translate it as: "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the body (is) of Christ." This would see 'body' as having a meaning of substance or reality. Admitedly, either choice has to assume something. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
14 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25701 | ||
Tim, Thanks for the quick response! Thank you also for actually looking at the pages to which I referred you to. You'd be amazed at the sheer number of people who wish to argue but never look at the evidence. On number one you seem to making more distinctions than are warranted. Paul uses the plural simply because he is referring to more than one thing. Secondly, the days that are mentioned in vs. 16 can be thought of as a sub-clause which he could have left out and his original audience would have known what he was talking about. Thirdly, it causes more problems than it is worth to assume that Paul was only referring to "sabbatwn": is he talking about the seventh-day Sabbath? If so, where in the OT is it given as a symbol of something to come? If it is the ceremonial sabbaths then what does that say about the other two (feasts and new moons)? The answer to number two is not based on assumptions; Troy Martin's study pays attention to the grammatical construction of the passage. Assumptions do come into play when it is assumed that Paul is playing off "shadow" with "body". |
||||||
15 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 25705 | ||
Greetings Djconklin! I have to admit, I was tempted not to read the pages! :-) 1) Greek pronouns usually agree with their antecedents in both gender and number. My point is simply this, including your translation, there appear to be three options concerning the antecedents of "these." a) All of the nouns listed in v. 16. b) Only "sabbaths". c) Only "eating" and "drinking". Of the three, I think a) is the best choice. b) is possible grammatically. But, c) has no grammatical support at all. I would disagree that the last three nouns are a sub-clause. 2) Again, I would disagree. Each option includes assumptions simply because there is no verb in the last clause of v. 17. I assume that the last clause is a contrast with the clause immediately preceding it. Thus, I would translate it as, "These are a shadow of what is to come, but the reality is Christ." Your position assumes that "but the body of Christ" refers all the way back to the beginning of verse 16 and thus you translate it, "But (let) the body of Christ (judge or decide)." Either option mandates an assumption since there is no verb! Grammatically, I think the best option is that 'de' contrast the body with the shadow. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
16 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25708 | ||
"I would disagree that the last three nouns are a sub-clause." This is because of the meaning of "e en merei"; check it out: http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/216b.html --- "Grammatically, I think the best option is that 'de' contrast the body with the shadow." Then write it up and submit it to Journal of Biblical Literature and see what they say when they review it. Here's what Troy Martin said: "The construction of [me oun tis umas krinetow ... to de soma tou kristou] is an antithesis. The negative member is stated first; the contrasting positive member introduced by an adversative conjunction occurs second. ... The verb [krineto] determines the action that is forbidden by the first member and then enjoined by the second member of this antithesis. ... The prohibition in the first clause of the antithesis in Col 2:16 indicates that the nuance of [krineto] is negative. ... However, the action enjoined by the second clause requires a positive nuance. ... An example of precisely this combination of nuances occurs in the antithesis in Rom 14:13 ...." [ "But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Colossians 2:17)," Journal of Biblical Literature 114/2 (1995): 252-3] |
||||||