Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132352 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! Now, now, let's not attack a person simply because we don't agree with his position. :-) Greek is a very precise language. I have had years of training and practice in translating myself, and I would certainly have translated Acts 2:38 exactly as he said. If you differ with his position, you really need to present evidence as to why his understanding of the Greek is in error, not simply accuse him of bias. By the way, the grammar is not convoluted. It is quite clear. For instance, we have a similar case in Luke 22:31. Who is the 'you' in this verse? Peter or all of the disciples? The number of the pronoun is plural, so it cannot refer to Peter only. In the same way, in Acts 2:38 the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to those (plural) who (plural) repent. The singular command to 'be baptized' has nothing to do with the promise. This is confirmed by the example of Cornelius in Acts 10. He received the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water, which would be a direct contradiction to your understanding of Acts 2:38. As far as Acts 22:16 is concerned, of course his reasoning would not apply in this case. Robertson's reasoning in Acts 2:38 was based upon grammatical construction. We don't have the same grammatical construction in Acts 2:16; hence, it would not apply! :-) Here is what the Bible Knowledge Commentary says about Acts 22:16: Here is what the Bible Knowledge Commentary says about Acts 22:16: *********************************************** Two questions revolve about this verse. First, when was Paul saved — on the Damascus Road or at Judas’ house? Several factors suggest he was saved on the Damascus Road: (1) The gospel was presented to him directly by Christ (Gal. 1:11-12), not later by Ananias. (2) Already (Acts 22:10) Paul said he had submitted in faith to Christ. (3) Paul was filled with the Spirit before his baptism with water (9:17-18). (4) The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated calling on His name refers either to action which is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb. Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name (for salvation) preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated, 'having called on His name.' Second, what then do the words wash your sins away mean? Do they teach that salvation comes by water baptism? Because Paul was already cleansed spiritually (see comments in preceding par.), these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God’s inner work of washing away sin (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21)" ************************************** My take on it would be a little different. The two imperatives main verbs are both in the middle voice. I would translate them as 'let yourself be baptized' and 'let be cleansed'. It is not clear from this verse that the one is related to the other in terms of cause and effect. For example, if Acts 22:16 meant that baptism cleanses our sins, Luke could have written: "Let youself be baptized that your sins will be (or 'may be') cleansed." There is nothing in the grammer to indicate that baptism results in cleansing. But, there is nothing in the grammer that would rule it out either. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132412 | ||
Dear Tim, I still have to conclude that A.T.Robertson’s peculiar rendition remains eccentric as no English translation of the Bible (I’m aware of adopts it) adopts it, even the Baptist / evangelical versions such as my NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, viz. the work of hundreds of Greek scholars goes against A.T.Robertson's translation. I believe this ultimately puts the burden of proof on you. Yours in Christ, Dalcent P.S. I did go to the trouble of reading this: http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/Robertson2-38.html |
||||||
3 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132417 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! I went to your link! I notice that the author spends quite a bit of time attacking those with whom he disagrees. It is sad that individuals cannot discuss differing views without resorting to slanderous attacks. Dr. Robertson is certainly not infalliable. However, he is a renowned Greek scholar. His grammars are used by almost every Greek student at one time or another. To simply ignore what he has to say because it does not agree with your positions is not a wise course of action. If you would like to politely discuss the 'supposed' problems raised in your link, I would be happy to do so. But, calling people names or insulting their integrity does not prove a person's case. Allow me to quote some of the passages I am talking about: ************************************* 1) These facts demonstrate that, greek scholar though he supposedly was, his private theological and sotierological views led him astray. 2) Purely on grammatical grounds, Robertson's assertions are clearly fabricated for ulterior reasons not related to the text itself. 3) It is clear from Robertson's phrasing that he has formed a conclusion before he examined the grammar, and then formed his grammatical explanation to agree with his soteriology. In other words, he has practiced isogesis instead of exegesis. 4) Apparently, Robertson did not study Hebrew and Rabbinical texts to the same extent as Greek New Testament texts. 5) We discover then, that Robertson's secret to determine how the grammar of a particular passage is to be translated is based not on established grammatical principles, or even on the teaching "once and for all given" but on one's prior notions of what the text ought to say. Source: http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/Robertson2-38.html *************************************** These are not the statements of someone involved in a scholarly debate! :-( In fact, one of the author's supposed fatal flaws to Dr. Robertson's position is that one of the early translations into Aramaic does not agree with Dr. Robertson. What does a translation have to do with the actual Greek text? A translation is a translation, and is only accurate to the extent that it accurately reflects the orginal text. Oh well, I'll leave this topic for now. But, as I said, if you would actually like to discuss the issues and not just insult a great scholar, I would be happy to do so. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132439 | ||
Hi there Tim, It is probably best to leave the discussion at this point. You can hardly expect a fairly conservative Catholic to take a face value a complex argument about Greek grammar that "disapproves" Catholic doctrine, especially when no Baptist friendly Bible translation follows it either. I know a Greek Orthodox Doctor of Theology (a native Greek speaker and Septuagint reader) so next time I see him I'll be interested in hearing what he makes of this. I'm simply not qualified to continue discussing this. Thanks for the time you spent answering this, Dalcent |
||||||
5 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Morant61 | 132448 | ||
Greetings Dalcent! No problem my friend! I would just be very cautious of web sites whose method of argument is to attack the person. I always begin by assuming that a person is honest and truely seeking the truth. There are many 'doctrines' where honest and intelligent people simply disagree. In those cases, I will present my evidence and listen to theirs. To me, when a person begins 'attacking' another person, it is because they don't have any 'evidence'. :-) In the case of this particular web site, the author doesn't present hard 'fact', but his opinion. But, he then attacks Dr. Robertson for presenting his opinion. That makes me very nervous! :-) Plus, I look at the credibility of the persons involved. Agree or disagree with him, Dr. Robertson is not some 'hack'. He is a recongnized expert in Greek. Now, grammar is a very fluid thing. It evolves over time. So, I don't always agree with everything that I have read about grammar. But, I would never think about attacking the person with whom I disagree. I know one example that I disagree with many 'Greek' experts concerns the conditional 'ei'. Most will argue that 'ei' usually means 'if', but sometimes means 'since'. I have researched this question quite a bit and simply don't find it to be true. :-) Anyway, if you hear from your friend and can get a detailed position (not simply an affirmation or denial), I would like to hear it. I am always interested in considering real evidence. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||