Charity

I started to write a post on the "About the Way of Jesus" thread about hell when I thought to search GSC first and found this thread. I have the book out on Hoopla's website through my library but it froze when I tried to download it. I'll have to walk to the library on Monday and Tuesday to read it there. Thanks for bringing the book up. I may read all the posts on this site but only after I've read it.

That's cool with me Rocky. As you know, I can come across as being too controlling, especially about small details, because that's what I am at times . If you want to share some of the other choices you see that are available, I'd be happy to read them.

Thank you for posting the Overview as I still can't bring it up on my computer. I think it explains the AI Overview given when I googled how many denominations in the world there are. Its answer was "There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations in the world." I think most church goers find acceptable doctrines in the church they decide to attend and for the most part they are not too overly concerned with what other denominations teach. However, it's when a skeptic attempts to compare the different doctrines of even a handful of them that you will find confusion, contention and scriptures being cherry picked. And as this reality goes against scriptures which teach about knowing "the truth," I have to wonder about the existence of a God who chose to communicate his will in this way. Clearing God of any responsibility for what goes on down here because people have "free will" and/or Satan is the "god of this world" only turns this God into being a myth imo.

Please do tell, exactly what kind of "witch hunt" do you believe was happening?

Thank you for clarifying - it's much appreciated. I’m assuming this is how you believe Hampson uses the word "original" as well.

Your link above did not bring up an AI overview. It brought up videos about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life as well as some websites about "truth." I wrote to Rocky earlier that the question was more of a rhetorical one, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about it if you'd like to share those.

In my last reply to you on this topic, I wrote, "However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb." So, I am in agreement with what you say above about Nicodemus. Concerning "anothen," I began with accepting Thayer's Lexicon specific definition for this word in John 3:3 as being "anew/again" just as it was correctly translated "again" in Gal 4:9. Now, although I don't completely understand John 3:7-8, I do think the way Jesus compares the movement of the wind with being born of the spirit can support the "born from above" definition. So, in the end, I am not in disagreement with your conclusion. Thank you for all your posts on this matter.

I've shared a few times before on threads that I want to get better at expressing my atheism in a respectful, unheated manner while also being able to ask about certain Christian doctrines which I once accepted but now question. I call it the "practice makes progress" concept and it is why I appreciate all feedback. It was helpful when you gave me a reason for why my question about God's choice of how to communicate his will should not be on this thread, and I agreed, deleted it and later moved it to the "Deconversion" thread. You did not explain though how my tone was off putting. If it was the underlined portions in the question, I explained in a post why I used that option. If it wasn't that then I won't know what you found wrong with the tone unless you tell me (like Nathan_Jr specifically did in his first post on this thread). Finally, I'm grateful for all your posts WordWolf on this thread.

Thank you for sharing the passage - I'm going to pass on it for myself. I'd like to ask for clarification though on how you take this passage to mean because of things you have said in the past about the bible. Do you follow verse 1 literally; i.e., do you accept all of God's words (which is implied) and store up all his commandments (also implied) within? And do you believe you understand the fear of the Lord and that you have found the (not "a") knowledge of God? I'm asking in a sincere way.

Fine Rocky because I don't believe in the premise either at this time. I'm opened to being proven wrong though if there was some empirical evidence for the existence of God. I'd have to say that it was a rhetorical question in that I wanted to make a biblical point in light of the discussion around the difficulty with translating languages. Also, it's obvious that the answer to the question can only come from God himself and what is the probability of that happening other than having to wait until the afterlife. I figure by then, it'll be too late to matter. It may be that the question might be enough for someone to begin asking other questions about the bible and come to a conclusion similar to your inclination stated above.

When I first read your post, I was surprised that the word "original" was being used in this manner. So the term "original" can now apply to all existing manuscripts regardless of when they were written, by whom they were written, where they were found, or how different they might be from one another. And the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition for "original" (that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made) can now include copies of copies of copies. And this has become the acceptable norm among some people in the field of biblical study. Serious question here - is this what is meant by utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills? If so, I just don't get it.

My only response to YOU, Rocky , is that whatever other choices there might be, they should come from the bible as that was the context in which I was speaking. Now would be a good time to ask this question which should not be a problem in this thread. Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?

Was it the underlined sections that made you assume I was angry? I used that option to focus on certain points - not to insinuate I'm absolute right in what I'm saying.

On the Bible Hub website, Thayer's Greek Lexicon is used to attach specific definitions or meanings of a word to specific verses. According to this source, the meaning of "anothen" in John 3:3 is anew or over again, not "from above." I can't always follow their reasoning like in the long list of references given under the (c.) option. I accepted their reasoning based on Nicodemus not directly addressing Jesus' words by asking how one can be born from above but how one can be born from the womb a second time (i.e., again). To me, this makes sense if Jesus had said "born again" or "born anew." However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb. Jesus explains it further in the following verses. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jesus is telling Nicodemus an earthly truth - you can't see the wind around and above you, but you know it's there because you can hear it. So when one is born of the spirit (i.e., from above), it's the same - you won't see the spirit, but you will know you have it because you hear it? As a master of Israel, what should Nicodemus had understood about this but didn't? Some commentaries say it's referring to when God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life and Adam became alive/a living soul. Maybe it relates to how the spirit was described in the old testament. How do you see the above verses as explaining the meaning of being born from above in a way that Nicodemus should have understood?

You guessed in error what my tone was in asking that question - I am not angry, just bewildered. But you are correct in the point you made. If I can delete or edit the post, I will and will put in in a different thread. My apologies WordWolf.

If you feel like answering, which of the two choices above do you accept as accurate?

I tend to rely heavily on Bible Hub for the meaning of words which I know is limiting. Here is where I got the definition of "anothen." Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 509: ἄνωθεν ἄνωθεν (ἄνω), adverb; a. from above, from a higher place: ἀπό ἄνωθεν (Winer's Grammar, § 50, 7 N. 1), Matthew 27:51 (Tdf. omits ἀπό); Mark 15:38; ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν from the upper part, from the top, John 19:23. Often (also in Greek writings) used of things which come from heaven, or from God as dwelling in heaven: John 3:31; John 19:11; James 1:17; James 3:15, 17. b. from the first: Luke 1:3; then, from the beginning on, from the very first: Acts 26:5. Hence, c. anew, over again, indicating repetition (a use somewhat rare, but wrongly denied by many (Meyer among them; cf. his commentary on John and Galatians as below)): John 3:3, 7 ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι, where others explain it from above, i. e. from heaven. But, according to this explanation, Nicodemus ought to have wondered how it was possible for anyone to be born from heaven; but this he did not say;...Galatians 4:9 (again, since ye were in bondage once before). You can read the whole answer for (c) in the link below. "Anothen"

You make important points regarding the inherent problems with translating from one language to another which then become even greater when the language is an ancient one or from almost two thousands years ago. Post edited due to a concern about the question I asked.

That's nice oldiesman, but Jesus wasn't talking about himself in Matthew 19:16-24. Jesus knew perfectly well what was awaiting him after his death, resurrection and ascension - one could say that was what motivated him. Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

I don't know how Hampson is using the term "original" (which he does 15 times in the article) because he does not specifically say. One of his quote is "We are very fortunate – in English – to have access to so many translations. And equally fortunate to have ready access to the original texts." Maybe if he is going to use it, he should explain what he means by it.

Thanks for bringing this one up as I had never heard of the camel/rope issue before. I’ve looked at a couple of websites which agree mostly with what you shared here. The websites confirm that there is no evidence of the existence of a small gate in the walls of Jerusalem known as the “eye of the needle” where a man could barely fit through, let alone a camel. Could Jesus have been using the figure of speech “hyperbole” if the word he used actually meant a camel? It makes for a more interesting image but like you say, a rope is definitely more logical than a camel. My question concerns the point Jesus was making about rich men entering the kingdom of heaven. Do you think wealthy men in the Old Testament, such as the most wealthiest of all - Solomon, fit into what Jesus is saying? What about the filthy rich people who own all these megachurches nowadays? And what about the longstanding churches like the Mormons and the Catholic Church where their estimated wealth is anywhere between 50-200 billion dollars? Exactly how much are they worth and precisely how is their wealth being gained and spent? No one can know for sure because they are not required to reveal their financial information. Most convenient for them. Does this teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19:16-24 apply to any of them?

I indeed knew very little about critical analysis/thinking skills at the age of 18 when I became involved with twi. However, I did not see myself as invulnerable or all-knowledgeable. Just the opposite - I hated myself and wanted desperately to know God's love. The love bombing shown to me at the beginning was all it took.

Am I missing something here? What "original" do you and Hampson think exists? The Greek word “kunarion,” meaning “a small dog,” is used only 4 times in the NT, and they are all found in the account of the Canaanite woman in Matthew and Mark. Now the other Greek word for dog, kuon, meaning a dog that is universally despised in the East, is clearly used that way 5 times in the NT. One of those usages is in Matthew 7:6 which is something like what Jesus said to the woman. It is, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Similar ideas but 2 different Greek word used for “dogs.” I'm interested in why this is. Finally, in order to remove this d-word, Hampson suggests the passage should read as follows: Jesus said, ‘It is not right to take food away from the children.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, but surely there will be crumbs that fall from the table.’ However, he does say in his article about that translation “Having to eat waste, and having to crawl under the table to collect it,is humiliation enough.” So with or without the d-word, the woman is feeling humiliated. It may not be what the whole passage is about, but it is still part of the passage.

Concerning your reference to wolves above, you did not suggest in this case that the word should go untranslated but that it should just be translated “jackal.” For example: Genesis 49:27, ““Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf jackal: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” Concerning “anothen,” leaving it out would make the verse read as follows: John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Two problems with this is that it’s stating the obvious and also Jesus does go on to describe being born two ways – born of the flesh and born of the spirit. I don't see the big problem with this Greek word. Any disagreement with “anothen” seems to be whether it means anew or again. “Anew” implies something made new usually as an improvement over the old while “again” implies something happening a second (or more) time. Nicodemus obviously took “anothen” to mean born “again” as shown in his reply about entering the womb a “second time.” Since this was not what Jesus meant, he explains to Nicodemus the two kinds of births – to be born of the flesh and born of the spirit. The spirit would fit with “anothen” meaning “anew” as it is an improvement over being born of the flesh. The Gospel of John which talks about being born again was written decades after Paul’s epistles to the church and Peter’s first epistle. Therefore, the church already had been taught by Paul that the saints "are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" in Romans 8 as well as them putting off the old man and putting on the new man in Ephesians 4. 1 Peter 1:23 uses the phrase “born again” when it compares being born of corruptible seed called the flesh in verse 24 with being born of incorruptible [seed] which supposedly means being born of the spirit. Nicodemus told Jesus that no one could do the miracles he did “except God be with him.” Jesus’s reply to this statement appears to explain to Nicodemus in what way God was with him and that was because he was born of the spirit. Was this not a reference to what happened when the dove descended from heaven upon Jesus when he was baptized and with God saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?" The whole context of John 3:1-8 centers around the word "anothen" because it refers to being born of the spirit - a doctrine that is most prevalent in the NT. I can't see how leaving it out is beneficial.