Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Peter 2:24 He personally carried our sins in His body on the cross [willingly offering Himself on it, as on an altar of sacrifice], so that we might die to sin [becoming immune from the penalty and power of sin] and live for righteousness; for by His wounds you [who believe] have been healed. |
Subject: Plain or Intended Meaning? |
Bible Note: Hi Atdcross, I would simply ask you to examine all the uses of the words in question in this passage throughout the New Testament, and see it the definitions as you have offered will actually work in those usages. I do not think that they will. The simplest example, not to speak anything against any of these scholars who have had much greater education than I have, but to define hate as "unjustifiable, malicious feelings" is to accuse God of wrongdoing for "hating" Esau. And that cannot be correct. I am not saying that Jesus spoke other than what he meant, I am saying that how we understand some of the words used is different than how they understood them then. My suggestion, to learn what these writers meant when they used a particular word, is to examine every occurrance in the Bible of that word. Determine what the meaning is within its context, find the common thread that connects them all, and you will be able to infer the meaning. I understand what you are saying about the oriental frame of reference, however, that does not as such determine the meanings of words, but rather how they are used. You can detest, abhor, "hate" as we think of it, someone, in feeling, thought, word, and deed. You can also disfavor, demote, subjugate, disapprove someone in feeling, thought, word, and deed. One is visceral, and one is willful. This is willful. If we are to say that, for instance, miseo is defined according to what you have said, even thought that definition does not work eveywhere it is used, that those instances actually mean something other than what the word means, we are left with the task of determining what it actually means. And who is to do that? You? Me? The guy down the street? If we approach scripture that way, we will all come up with something different, and we will remove the objective meaning from the Bible, and it will be no better for us than reading Dr. Seuss. Now, I like Dr. Seuss, but we already have him, and what we need is the Bible, telling US what IT means. If we simply come to the text prepared to receive whatever it offers, and carefully and thouroughly study it, it will reveal itself without conflict, without inconsistencies, and without having to redefine words to fit difficult passages. By the way, you may want to check out "The Language of Jesus", by Douglas Hamp. He presents a very strong case from Biblical, historical, and literary sources that the Jews spoke Hebrew as their primary language until 130 AD. This simply backs up what the Bible already says, that they spoke Hebrew, although this is changed in many Bibles to be Aramaic to match the modern belief. Oh well... Love in Christ, Mark |