Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 216650 | ||
Greetings Colin! Good points my friend! Concerning Acts 20:28, the final phrase reads: "through the blood his own" For whatever reason, even orthodox scholars are reluctant to accept the reading that indicates that the blood was the blood of God. We really need to stand up for this truth. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216652 | ||
Tim, With the NWT (the JW bible), these translations also render Acts 20:28 thus: (NET): ...with the blood of his own Son. (NRSV): ...with the blood of his own Son. (RSV): ...with the blood of his own Son. Your thoughts? |
||||||
3 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 216654 | ||
Greetings Colin! I was particularly disappointed with the Net Bible. It is usually very sound. The reasoning behind their translation involves two main points. First of all, does the verse speak of the 'church of God', 'the church of the Lord', or 'the church of the Lord and God'? There is manuscript support for all three. Some support the 'church of God', some support for the 'church of the Lord'. If the second reading is correct, then 'his own blood' would obviously be a reference to the blood of Christ, not God. So, the translations you refer to would be correct, if they accept the second reading. The longer reading is supported by the largest number of manuscripts, but it is a later reading and an obvious combination of the two earlier variant readings. Interesting, the NET Bible accepts the reading 'church of God'. Why then do they translate the last phrase as 'with the blood of his own Son'? This leads us to the second consideration. 'the blood of his own' could be seen as a reference to God's Son. Here is what the Net Bible notes say about this point. "tn Or "with his own blood"; Grk "with the blood of his own." The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning "his own blood"; or (2) as a possessive genitive, "with the blood of his own." In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, "The Blood of God," CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408." What do I think? I still think that for some reason, some translators will go to almost any lengths to avoid saying what these Christologically pregnant passages actually say, that Jesus is God. If one accepts the 'church of the Lord' reading, the Net Bible translation could be acceptable. But, if one accepts the 'church of God' reading, it is a major stretch to deny the full import of this verse. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216657 | ||
Tim, If rendered His (God's) church and his own Blood (humanity) we have an assertion of the full humanity and divinity of Christ. Your point is clear, to render it the "church of God" and then, "blood of his own son" can bring this divine union into question. The fullest reading, it seems, should be "Church of the Lord...with His own blood." Colin |
||||||
5 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | CDBJ | 216665 | ||
Greetings, REF. Acts 20:28 The church of the Lord would be wrong because the word in the Koine Greek is THEOU which is God. the word for Lord, Kurios isn't used in the passage. CDBJ |
||||||
6 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216668 | ||
CDBJ, you're right. Good call. | ||||||