There is a clear compare and contrast presentation in 2 Corinthians chapter 3. Two ministrations are compared. One is Life and the other is death.
Again this same comparison is made where Paul clearly says in Romans 7:23...But I see ***another*** law..... One is life and the other is death.
Again compared here in Colossians 2
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was ***against us***, which was ***contrary*** to us, and took it ***out of the way***, nailing it to his cross;
Death was taken out of the way.
Col 2:22 Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are ***to perish*** with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men...
perish = death
Isaiah 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for ***out of Zion*** shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
The law of faith was the law that came forth from Zion.
Then there is the law of Moses which came from Sinai.
Galatians 4:24-25 identifies them as covenants.... Gal 4:26 Jerusalem which is above is free. Free from what? Death. Paul goes on in Gal. 5 and speaks of liberty...liberty from what? D
I must admit I am struggling to follow your opinions and how you arrive at them. I mentioned the law of faith and 1 John 3:21-23 and Lurker referenced what a stony heart is as well as God's covenant with Israel.
Perhaps this will help...
2 Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Liberty from what? The the ministration of death says 2 Cor 3:7.
Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY...by Love serve one another.
A study of 2 Cor. 3 references what is described as the ministration of death.
John UK wrote: And none of them kept all those ten commandments, because of being born with a sinful nature and original sin; guilty from the womb, having sinned in Adam. Lurker, you're going to have to read between the lines if ever you want to grasp God's eternal plan for his elect. Until you see the effects of the Fall, you'll always be a dispensationalist; that is, you see God trying out different ways of dealing with men, hoping each time for a better result, never getting it. There's only ever been one way, and it involves blood.
John. Seems to me that you assigning an incorrect label of dispensationalist to Lurker is your way out when hard questions come. Why not just ask questions to probe further on the things that are not adding up to you? Seems to me your post is nothing but you throwing dust in the air to escape dealing with it.
John UK wrote: But having been set free, now what? This is my point..
Not to answer for Kev but I would think the answer to your question would simply be obedience to the law of faith referenced in Romans 3:27. And obedience seems to be defined by these most wonderful words.
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
The purpose of Erasmus and his work was to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate. In 1516, he published a Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament. The Latin portion was not the corrupt Vulgate, but his own fresh rendering of the text from the more accurate and reliable Greek which had come from the manuscripts that escaped from Constantinople in 1453 of which he had six to work from. All were dated from the 12th Century or later and was the work of scribes in Constantinople from copies of what had been housed there from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century. Eusebius was the benefactor of receiving from Origen his private library which Origin had given to the Christian community in Constantinople. Origin was the greatest textual critic of the early Church, directing the production of the massive Hexapla ("Sixfold"), an Old Testament in six columns: Hebrew, Hebrew in Greek characters, the Septuagint, and the Greek versions of Theodotion, Aquila of Sinope, and Symmachus. This was an immense and complex word-for-word comparison of the Greek Septuagint with the original Hebrew Scriptures and with those other Greek translations. Herein lies the DNA of what we today refer to as the TR.
What made the revision of the NT in 1534 an improvement over the 1526 NT was the inclusion of translating from the Hebrew. While Tyndale's 1526 NT was a translation from the Greek only, Where the Greek New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament, Tyndale in his 1534 version of the NT, would translate from the original Hebrew into the English rather than from the Greek. Tyndale translated in 1530 the Pentateuch. He also translated from Joshua to 2 Chronicles as well as Jonah. What he found to be true about the relationship of English and Hebrew in performing this work is spoken in Tyndale's words here:
"The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate it into the English, word for word; when thou must seek a compass in the Latin, and yet shall have much work to translate it well-favoredly, so that it have the same grace and sweetness, sense and pure understanding with it in the Latin."
From the first edition of 1560 Geneva Bible and its last edition in 1644, 160 editions, totaling around a half million Geneva Bibles, were produced. And for the first time common people could not only understand the words in the Bible, they could actually own one. Its widespread use first solidified the English language among the common people, not the 1611 King James Bible as many assume. Actually, the King James Bible required decades to surpass the popularity of the Geneva and supplant it from the hearts of the English speaking world and only achieved this by making it illegal in 1616 to print any other copy other than the 1611 KJV.
Tyndale used Erasmusâ€™s Greek text (third edition) to produce the first printed English New Testament in 1526.
He later revised his New Testament and it was printed in Antwerp, Belgium, in 1534. Despite living as a hunted criminal, Tyndaleâ€™s work was exceptional and so accurate that the later widespread Geneva and King James Bibles would utilize more than 80 percent of his exact wording. In fact, much of the vast influence attributed to the Geneva and King James Bibles should be attributed to one man whom God used for His purpose â€” William Tyndale
It succeeded because other versions were banned. The Geneva Bible continued to sell and in huge numbers. Indeed, the Geneva proved so popular that in 1616 the King was forced to ban the printing of the Geneva Bible by any English press. Although people continued to import copies, eventually the ban worked and the AV became the default English translation.
Also...It was a revision not a new translation. James ordered that it be based on the text of the Bishopsâ€™ Bible of 1568. James instructed that the new version was to be â€˜as little altered as the truth of the original [i.e. the Bishopâ€™s Bible] will permit.
Thankfully the translation of William Tyndale NT and what he was able to translate in the OT before being murdered is what you mostly read in the bibles that came after his death.
Tyndale, as did Erasmus, benefited from the influx of Greek manuscripts that had come from Constantinople which had been residing in the Greek speaking culture for a thousand years.
Here is a link to a good read on the subject for those interested.
My original intention of commenting was due to your wonderful comment you had made prior as I will paste here.
"You see now why it is so important to use the whole of the Bible for ascertaining doctrine?" is true indeed."
I must say I have not studied Ezek 18 in conjunction with Jer. 31. But due to our interaction I can now see the cross reference of the two and each should shed light on the other with this proverb as part of the topic.
The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Seems if we understand the proverb more light will be shed on Ezek. 18. When you define the terms then the story comes to life.
Sour grapes are found here.
Deut 32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:
The fathers seem to be mentioned earlier in Deut. 32
The LORD GOD says there will be no use for the proverb anymore. Why? Perhaps its due to what happens in Jer 31:33.
Ezek 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Bless you Bro. and I can see how Jer 31:3 would be one of your favorites. I like it as well...thank you for the reminder of it.
Keeping to my original point, I believe we should not ignore places in Scripture that "appear" to contradict our understanding. Instead we should open our hearts to be taught what God meant. God spoke in other places other than Ezek. 18 on this. Look at the cross references.
There is Deut 24:16...2 Kings 14:6...Jer. 31:30.
Why not try to understand what is being said? Is it speaking of Jacob and Ephraim in Jer. 31?
Saint John of Wales, I understand the purpose of the author was to give the 3 "positions" he was aware that some hold to. I know that the 30 minutes I gave to reading the article and the related scripture produced some questions which the author could have missed unintentionally or sidestepped due to difficulty. The author, in my opinion, could have gone further into the text, but that would have obviously created more questions to address which are not easy. Ezekiel 18, as I see it, is presented as an isolated text which we should not give weight to but instead follow the advice of "Yet we dare not make it an absolute principle. If we do, then the text of Ezekiel would prove too much."
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
prove too much? What I hear is... We stop there because it goes against our doctrine.
There is no mention of Jer. 31:29. The very same proverb. No where else is the proverb mentioned in Scripture. Why not glean from both Jer. 31 and Ezek. 18 with an open mind to understand what God has said?
Thanks for the link on this. Here are a few quotes from it.
"Ezekiel was not giving a discourse on the fall of Adam. The Fall is not in view here. Rather, Ezekiel is addressing the commonplace excuse that men use for their sins. They try to blame someone else for their own misdeeds. That human activity has gone on since the Fall, but that is about all this passage has to do with the Fall."
"Yet we dare not make it an absolute principle. If we do, then the text of Ezekiel would prove too much."
************** A few observations...
Instead of dealing with the text we are to not give weight to this verse because our understanding seems to be contrary to it?
Then there is the generalized exposition of the text given as "Ezekiel is addressing the commonplace excuse that men use for their sins?"
I have no PHD...but I do see in Ezek 18:2 , the text is addressing a proverb, not the commonplace excuse that men use for their sin. I see that the very same proverb in Ezek 18 is addressed in Jer. 31:29-30 as well.
Jer. 31:29 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
After reading Jeremiah 31, perhaps the Father being spoken of is Jacob and the son being referenced is Ephraim.
Your comment of..."You see now why it is so important to use the whole of the Bible for ascertaining doctrine?" is true indeed. So what then do we do with a portion that appears to contradict in another place of Scripture? I think We find where our error of understanding is.
This one in Ezekiel seems plain enough too.
Ezek 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: the most accurate Bible in our own language (In English, it is the KJV)
1. Ancient Hebrew, as a language,only existed in the Scriptures. Before the Scriptures...Ancient Hebrew just did not exist. For a 1,000 years Hebrew was the only written language God used to communicate with until the Aramaic language resulted from a mix of the Hebrew with the Persian with Hebrew LOSING its picture-language character which unfaithful scribes being the culprit. So about 150 B.C. God altered the primary language to Greek.
2.Paul wrote to Rome in Greek...not in their tongue Latin.
Hidden away in Constantinople were Greek manuscripts for a thousand years until 1450 which would be the ones which William Tyndale would translate the NT. Yes he used others but his comments of "The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more than with the Latin."
3. As Ancient Hebrew was not a language, neither was English in the form which Tyndale would begin with to translate God's Word(Zeph 3:9).Tyndale sought to shape English to best express the picture language character Ancient Hebrew has and once again God's Word was in a picture language.