brideofjc

Well, Cman you state here "the answer offers a greater view of the question..." Are you going to post what you have studied?

In the first place, some clarifications need to take place before I get into this post. First, so that there are not any illusions as to what I refer to with spirit, soul and body; I believe in a tripartite being, that said, spirit is spirit and soul is soul, etc. v4 Jesus is speaking about the beginning of beginnings, if you will - at the very original creation of ADAM, s/he or their individual spirits were in the same body. After some time went by, when ADAM noticed all of the animals copulating and having babies, I'm sure ADAM approached GOD and wondered where s/he's mate was located. Whenever this occured, who knows, then did God put ADAM's (flesh) into a deep sleep. This is when he took the female spirit out of the body of ADAM, leaving only the male spirit and then GOD would of necessity have had to form a new body for the female spirit. Which we know that HE did. It is when the SPIRIT enters into the BODY that then a SOUL is formed. Voila! MALE ADAM wakes up and sees FEMALE ADAM and then GOD has the LAST LAUGH! For then GOD COMMANDS THEM TO NOW BE ONE! I guess you had to be there or have the same dry humor that I do. I can just imagine God listening to ADAM whine saying that s/he didn't like what GOD made and GOD responding to them, "You don't like the way that I arranged you? Well, then how about this?" Adam responds after the ultimate make-over: "Oh, hey, this is great, now I have a mate!" God then tells them to GO AND DO what GOD had originally and automatically allowed them to do. GEEZ! Some people are hard to please, aren't they? This pericope has several levels, CMAN: First of all, Rachel is correct when she said that the Pharisees were tempting Jesus, plus they wanted to see: 1. Would he agree with Moses' law? 2. Would he agree with the comtemporary views of marriage/divorce? 3. Can we trap him and discredit him? There were two major schools of thought in Judaism during the Lord's walk on earth. The first one was the "School of Shammai" which was ultra strict, you followed every jot and tittle in the law even if it killed you to do it, literally. Then there was the "School of Hillel" which was a very liberal school of thought and pretty much allowed anything. The two schools of thought were in constant conflict with each other and if one said, "First you sweep the floor and then wash the hands," the other school said "You wash your hands and then you sweep the floor." Thus we get to the idea of divorce in culture, and Shammai only allowed divorce for the cause of adultery, but Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, even as one case in point, Hillel allowed for divorce if your wife burnt your toast. So the Pharisees were wanting to see which "school" that he would side with but Jesus sidestepped their trap and pointed to a time before any such "schools" were prevalent, before Moses even and point to how God created then in the beginning. And so Jesus sides with GOD, thus stepping out of any party factions. Yes, it is talking about man and woman who are NOW separate, but should desire to find a mate and become ONE as GOD COMMANDED. Is it talking about SOUL? Yes. But not for salvation of it, because Jesus was yet to bring in the perfect salvation. V.6 Jesus is pointing out that as at the beginning, ADAM (male and female spirits) were housed in ONE FLESH, now the two separated BODIES, albeit only through intercourse, were to NOW BECOME ONE FLESH. Which they become if only for however long the mood lasts (trying to be genteel about this), but the neat thing about how GOD made sexual intercourse...while the two BODIES are being joined temporarily, a UNIQUE BOND is formed between the MALE/FEMALE SOULS, which is why if the two separate BODIES decide to divorce, that it is so painful because TWO SOULS THAT HAVE BECOME ONE in essence are now being RIPPED ASUNDER, which is why GOD had it written that no one was to PUT ASUNDER what GOD HAD JOINED. That said, but Jesus goes on to speak about eunuchs, or those who choose to not marry in this life for whatever reason: some are born that way; some are made that way by other men (like a eunuch who takes care of a king's concubines); and some who choose to become this way in order to serve GOD without distraction of any sexual yearnings. But in v.7-9 Jesus does address the two schools in that he states that Moses gave divorce because of the hardness of your hearts (currently Hillel's liberal school) and that no one should TRULY DIVORCE except for the most aggregious cause, such as ADULTERY OR FORNICATION.

Well, after putting up with Mike's toying with everyone and then taking up to 150 friggin posts just to get half of it out..... Kinda looked like that's what Cman was about to do....hey what do you think about this? So my first response upon reading it was....OMG! Another one!

CMAN, please do not start imitating Mike! If you think you have some new light to shed on a subject, just share it and then we'll comment on what you have set forth. OK?

It would seem that whenever Mike doesn't want to FOCUS on something, his modus operandi is "JUST DON'T ANSWER THE POST!" Just focus on the crystal ball......there's so much LIGHT in there. It's been there for 2000 years..... But he can't seem to find any documentation for the comments off the top of his head...or was that vp's head?

Naw, he was LOOKING at me....and my spirit experienced the heebie jeebies!

I personally use the UBS4, the NA27 and the NASB plus the KJV.

Mike, they didn't reconstruct it like apparently you are envisioning as if they went up to some mountaintop and " ahhhh-uhmmmmm, ahhhh-uhmmmmmm, Oh, tell us Great One what you had written before! ahhhh-uhmmmmm, ahhhh-uhmmmmmm." The scribal process was an ongoing one, with new mss being copied and sent to new areas as the church grew and multiplied. I don't remember the papyrii number, and it may even have been in the Hebrew, but the scribe was young and in training and actually copied the author's margin notes and put it directly into the text not realizing that it was only marginal notes and not actual text. But guess what, Mike? The scholars know about these errors and they are duly catalogued and numbered. Besides which, the places where they know about these errors, most of these errors were just that....errors and not deliberate forgeries. You still haven't made any citations of the documents you're supposedly getting this information from....why is that? They surely have an online version somewhere, where I can also read what you are reading....unless you're talking off the top of your head. All the originals were copied in such a way it required Stevens and others to “criticize” the fragments and “correct” them. The ink of these Critical Greek Texts was still wet 1500 years after the originals were lost. Citation? Any? And then it would seem that you choose to use the KJV which was from the Stevens text...why is that? Why not choose another more modern version?

Without wishing to be redundant....NO! You said it yourself, Mike, even if you wish to leave it in God's mind, which then it would be impossible for us to know....then of a necessity God must put it into either a verbal or written form....which GOD CAN HAVE REWRITTEN if somehow it gets lost or corrupted. But its a fair shot Mike that not all of the written forms would be corrupted at one time. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls find....God kept that ace up his sleeve and pulled it out when those that wished to debunk the prophetic utterances concerning HIS SON were saying that the prophecies were really written post-Christian era. The debunkers have shut their mouths. So, no Mike, GOD PROTECTS HIS WORD.

Are you sure that the shaking isn't God splitting open the earth and his subsequent falling into the rut?

Exactly how do you think these mss were copied and re-copied, Mike? They didn't run down to their local Kinko's, nor were HP printers with Vivera inks around either. You know, Mike....I really didn't expect you to have an answer to what I posted....because when it comes down to grammar and its rules, there really aren't any rejoinders left for the debater to come back with, and that's okay. This is why I love the fact that the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY had his HOLY WRIT put into the Greek language. The Greek language is a highly inflected language and it's difficult to wriggle out of any supposed mistranslations that one supposes might be there. Are there some? Yes. The translators of the KJV did their best with what they had in 1611, but modern translators have so much more available to them that they ever dreamed about. Blessings

I don't think I even want to truly comment on your last remark....I could...but it wouldn't be very nice...so I'll refrain

Well, Waysider said that a certain someone or perhaps it should be anyone or better yet, THIS ONE, likes the color orange. So I'm accomodating that person.

quote name='Mike' date='Mar 5 2008, 03:20 PM' post='401208']You don't have any clue, do you? Wow! You really want to see that guy thrown into hellfire!This one's for you Mike, just so you can see this when you're not busy counting your eyelashes....Nope! I do however wish to WARN THE BODY OF CHRIST that THEY WILL BE JUDGED and it is NOT A JOKE!Now, if that gets you into HELL FIRE.....well perhaps.....lez see......MAYBE I SHOULD CHANGE MY WAYSand SUBMIT TO THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL!If you could loose that traditional picture, plug that word "this" in there and read the whole context it should be obvious what "this" refers to. You have traditional blinders on.Mike, don't know how old you are....but do you remember ROMPER ROOM? Let's put our THINKING CAPS ON.....AND LOOK IN THE MAGIC MIRROR.....And please don't forget that you are working with documents that are copies of copies of copies, including errors, and with deliberate forgeries in there to boot.

Let me ask the question that once again you have left begging... "THIS" WHAT???? If you leave 'THIS' hanging in mid-air, it then leads the reader to understand that what will be destroyed is the temple of God....and I don't think so! Touton is an accusative masculine which means it is the direct object of the second phrase in that first line. With that in mind, let me ask you another question, Mike. Why does it bother you that "TOUTON" (again an accusative) would be translated as "this one" which lacks any gender specificity and therefore can also include females, while "TIS" which the KJV and the NASB both translate it as "man", but it is an "indefinite pronoun" and is normally translated as 1.anyone 2.someone Those are the singular usages 1.some 2.certain 3.several These are the plural usages, but the usage of "man" in that place doesn't bother you? This shows your inconsistency, which I will allow you since you do not translate. For your further information, the Scriptures are not a "FILL IN THE BLANK" format. To have a good (at the very least) translation, one must complete that thought. To leave 'this" hanging in mid-air would only cause the reader confusion, for they would ask the obvious, wouldn't they? Furthermore, the noun in the first phrase is the indefinite pronoun "TIS," or "anyone" which is in the substantival position; while the verb is "destroys" and thus the direct object is "the temple"; while the noun in the second one is "God" and the verb once again is "destroys" and then the direct object is "touton" or "this one." To find the nearest noun that a direct object is linked to would take you back to "TIS", the indefinite pronoun which should have been translated as "anyone" and then perhaps you wouldn't have had a problem with "touton" being translated as "this one." But since they translated it as "man", the thought follows that perhaps the variant reading isn't so variant, is it? It could also be translated as "man" in the second phrase. The sentence construction basically places God and man in opposition to each other to highlight the seriousness and the devastation that both can cause. While man can only do limited destruction, even to the temple of God; God can do the ultimate destruction of the man. Because this sentence is highlighting the antithetical position of God v. man, the translator must make the choice of either using "anyone/this one" or "man/man" in both sections to complete the thought. This post has been edited by brideofjc: Today, 08:17 PM

Uhhmmm.....what about the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD? I wonder where God came in....do ya think it was a tie? :(

And which word would you like to FIX? Yeah, I posted to Dooj's post and then I read T-Bones...Geez, I could of saved my breath and then I read White Dove.... Well, I already covered it.... "The Greek is used for "touton" which = "this", which then requires you use the word "one" with it so that it makes sense in the context. But the textual apparatus in NA27, lists "auton" = him, as the variant reading. Either way, whether you use "this one" or "him' it is still singular.

The temple is both, Dooj. But here in this verse of 3:17 of which following is a very rough translation so that you can see how it is worded from the Greek. If anyone the temple of God destroys, destroys this one [variant reading is: him] God; (this part is singular) For the temple of God holy is, what you are. (Plural) Now to smooth it out: "If anyone destroys the temple of God, God shall destroy this one [him]; For the temple of God is holy, [which is] what you are." Starting back in verse 10, it is singular, "but let EACH ONE" and I emphasize "each one" because the Greek word that is used does just that and so to carry the thought through to english, you could CAP it. In v12, a generic use is given and should be "anyone" But in v13, Paul repeats and returns to "EACH MAN'S work" 2x in the verse In v14-15, again it is generic and should be rendered "any one" but then in v16, Paul returns again to "know not that you (plural) are the temple." and "the Spirit of God lives in you (plural). v17 a generic use of "if any one (singular) defile the temple of God, God shall destroy this one [him]. So why the interchange between singular and plural? Because EACH ONE is a living stone and EACH ONE will be held accountable for how you built upon the foundation which is the Lord Jesus Christ in the process of building the collective temple. Why? Because the temple of God is holy, [which is] what you are. Collectively, we make up the temple of God and one can say that each one is also the temple of God because we are each a living stone that is being put into the building of the temple. And yes, this is a warning for VP, but you too, and me and all the rest who call themselves Christian. So you see, there are not any real contradictions in this verse as Mike alluded to at the beginning of this foo hah hah.