Sunday, July 31, 2016

Yet another accidental omission caused by Homoeoteleuteon

MARK 10: 32
'...those who followed were afraid' 

- Qodex Bezae (D), Old Latin, etc. Omits phrase.

"...the omission was probably due to Homoeoteleuteon."

- The Interpreter's Bible 
Vol. VII, General Articles on the New Testament, Gospel according to Mark, pg. 810

Once again, we find an omission that can be traced directly to a simple error due to similar line endings, namely:

This error was naturally transmitted across to the Latin translations in Qodex D and related Latin manuscripts in this line of transmission. It's another example of why the omissions in 4th Century Manuscripts can not be relied upon or taken seriously for the purposes of textural reconstruction.

Signed Nazaroo

Friday, August 14, 2015

NewScientist Magazine Shoots Themselves in the Head on Evolution Evidence

Just in case they actually take this page down or alter it,
I'm capturing it for all internet eternity here,
as a prime example of how Evolutionists falsify data
and make up completely outrageous claims
to mislead those who don't bother to read the fine print,
like our friend MCThomas
who actually dared to post a link to this fabrication:

Note the critically important admission in the 8th paragraph:

"Crucially, tC19Z can [only] copy pieces of RNA that are
almost half as long (48 per cent) as itself.
If an RNA enzyme is to copy itself, it has to be able to copy
sequences as long as itself,


Doing an artificial experiment that fails to create replicating RNA:.. $50,000
Posting the results in a misleading way on a credible Science Site: $5,000

Having a proponent of Evolution attempt to use it as evidence: ... Priceless.

(1) True: A clown fabricated some RNA that can't replicate itself.

(2) False: A scientist created Self-Replicating RNA.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Daniel 11:37 and "the desire of women"...

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." (Dan. 11:37 KJV)

Jubilee Bible 2000
Neither shall he care for the God of his fathers, nor the love of women, nor care for any god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

King James 2000 Bible
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American King James Version
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American Standard Version
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

English Revised Version
Neither shall he regard the gods his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Webster's Bible Translation
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

World English Bible
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

Young's Literal Translation
And unto the God of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself.

New American Standard Bible
"He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.

Many have identified this verse with the Vatican RC 'priesthood',
because of their supposed celibacy vows,
long recognized by Protestantism as a perversion of God's intent.

To counter this meaning,
Roman Catholic translators alter this verse.

For instance:

Roman Catholic Versions:

Douay-Rheims Bible:
And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things.

Living Bible (TLB)

He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

The 'Modern' Translations:

New International Version
He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

New Living Translation
He will have no respect for the gods of his ancestors, or for the god loved by women, or for any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

English Standard Version
He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

International Standard Version
He'll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women— he won't recognize any god, because he'll exalt himself above everything.

NET Bible
He will not respect the gods of his fathers--not even the god loved by women. He will not respect any god; he will elevate himself above them all.

What exactly is the original Hebrew?

לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל.
Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all.

When we turn to the various commentaries available,
we nonetheless find some confusion and some variance of opinion
on the exact meaning of this phrase.

Part of the problem is in the apparent confusion as to whom the prophecy
is about. Is it about Antiochus? or the Future Anti-Christ? or both?

Those who try to force Daniel to only deal with Antiochus (circa 165 B.C.)
and who date Daniel as a 'late pious forgery' usually attempt a historical interpretation.

The problem with applying it to Antiochus is that it literally contradicts
all that is known about Antiochus. He was a lustful womanizer,
and apparently huge indulger in lustful passions. The text on its face
says the opposite about its subject.

The remainder of this prophecy is very difficult, and commentators differ much respecting it. From Antiochus the account seems to pass to antichrist. Reference seems to be made to the Roman empire, the fourth monarchy, in its pagan, early Christian, and papal states. The end of the Lord's anger against his people approaches, as well as the end of his patience towards his enemies.
- Matthew Henry's Commentary

Nor the desire of women - The phrase "the desire of women" is in itself ambiguous, and may either mean what they desire, that is, what is agreeable to them, or what they commonly seek, and for which they would plead; or it may mean his own desire - that is, that he would not be restrained by the desire of women, by any regard for women, for honorable matrimony, or by irregular passion. The phrase here is probably to be taken in the former sense, as this best suits the connection. There has been great variety in the interpretation of this expression. Some have maintained that it cannot be applicable to Antiochus at all, since he was a man eminently licentious and under the influence of abandoned women.

Jerome, in loc., John D. Michaelis, Dereser, Gesenius, and Lengerke suppose that this means that he would not regard the beautiful statue of the goddess Venus whose temple was in Elymais, which he plundered.

Staudlin and Dathe, that he would not regard the weeping or tears of women - that is, that he would be cruel.

Bertholdt, that he would not spare little children, the object of a mother's love - that is, that he would be a cruel tyrant.

Jerome renders it, Et erit in concupiscentiis faminarum, and explains it of unbridled lust, and applies it principally to Antiochus.

Elliott, strangely it seems to me (Apocalypse, iv. 152), interprets it as referring to what was so much the object of desire among the Hebrew women - the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; and he says that he had found this opinion hinted at by Faber on the Prophecies (Ed. 5), i.-380-385.

Others expound it as signifying that he would not regard honorable matrimony, but would be given to unlawful pleasures.

It may not be practicable to determine with certainty the meaning of the expression, but it seems to me that the design of the whole is to set forth the impiety and hard-heartedness of Antiochus. He would not regard the gods of his fathers; that is, he would not be controlled by any of the principles of the religion in which he had been educated, but would set them all at defiance, and would do as he pleased; and, in like manner, he would be unaffected by the influences derived from the female character - would disregard the objects that were nearest to their hearts, their sentiments of kindness and compassion; their pleadings and their tears; he would be a cruel tyrant, alike regardless of all the restraints derived from heaven and earth - the best influences from above and from below.
It is not necessary to say that this agrees exactly with the character of Antiochus. He was sensual and corrupt, and given to licentious indulgence, and was incapable of honorable and pure love, and was a stranger to all those bland and pure affections produced by intercourse with refined and enlightened females. If one wishes to describe a high state of tyranny and depravity in a man, it cannot be done better than by saying that he disregards whatever is attractive and interesting to a virtuous female mind.
- Barnes' Notes

Desire of women.—The language used by Isaiah (Isaiah 44:9), “delectable things,” has led some commentators to think that an idol is here intended. It has been stated that the allusion is to the Asiatic goddess of nature, Mylitta, who, again, has been identified with the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18, where see Notes). The context, however, leads us rather to think of human affection, or some other thing highly prized by women, for the words “neither shall he regard any god” would be unmeaning if a god were designated by “the desire of women.”
- Ellicott's Commentary

Nor the desire of women — This, as some think, means, nor the god that is loved and adored by women; and, taking the clause in connection with the context, this seems the most natural sense of it; for the whole verse speaks of the impiety, or irreligion, of Antiothus, that he had no regard to any god whatever. What god this was that was the desire of women, cannot be certainly said; it is probable it was the moon, (the queen of heaven, as they used to call her,) or some other of the heavenly luminaries; for the Syrian women are described in Scripture as particularly attached to these. Or the expression may refer to his barbarous cruelty, and be intended to signify that he should spare no age nor sex, and should have no regard to women, however lovely or amiable. In fact, the author of the Maccabees informs us, that by his command mothers were killed with their children; and that there was killing of young and old, men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants, 2Ma 5:13.
- Benson's Commentary

In any case, trying to "pre-emptively interpret" by altering or expanding
and paraphrasing the text has historically done NOTHING to clarify
what the prophet or God intended in this verse.

The best course seems to be to leave the translation as accurate and
as literal as possible, and study it afresh.

We now know that Daniel could not possibly have been a late forgery,
as was the fad - explanation assigned to the book in the 19th century
by unbelievers and German 'higher critics'.

At Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple copies of the book
have been found, and these indicate both the later form of text
(Aramaic/Hebrew sections) and a longstanding textual history of variants,
which could not have arisen in a mere few years under the strict copying
of later scribes.

Daniel is far older than Antiochus (164 B.C.E.) who's activity
was contemporary with the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In his time, Daniel had already had a long copying history.


Lets see how discussion of the verse has progressed:

(1) We established that there was a second, more longwinded interpretation
of the phrase, introduced into alternate translations by Roman Catholic scholars.

(2) "Username" showed that this idea was influenced by and originated
from the Jewish commentator Rashi in the Middle Ages, possibly the Talmud.

(3) The 'new' interpretation/paraphrase has not helped to clarify the verse.

(4) The attempt to apply everything in Daniel to Antiochus (164 BCE)
was a 'fail' for several good reasons:
(a) Daniel was in circulation long before Antiochus (164 BCE),
and so would remain a detailed prophecy.
Even a plausible (but skeptical) late date (say circa 250-200 BCE)
later than traditional (circa 530 BCE) doesn't solve the prophecy claim or issue. Since the 'late pious forgery' theory was invented to refute
prophecy and re-interpret the book as historical on rational/skeptical lines,
the approach is a waste of time, since it doesn't achieve a solution
to the 'scandal' of detailed prophecy.

(b) The prophecy details don't make good sense when applied to Antiochus.
At the least, the prophecy suggests the opposite of his character.
On its face it suggests a warlord (worshipping the 'god of war') who
simply does not regard or highly value women (a misogynist).
While a philanderer and man-whore can be said to have a low opinion of
women by default, its not really an obvious characterization of womanizers.

(c) The very prophecy is viewed as having descriptive power over 'future' events
mentioned by Jesus the Messiah (circa 30 A.D.), which means that
if they were really meant to apply to Antiochus (circa 164 B.C.),
then Jesus was mistaken, misleading, or adding a new interpretation
meant to supercede the one intended by Daniel.

(d) The requirement to incorporate Rome as the Fourth Empire and also
a player in destruction of the Macedonian/Greek Empire elsewhere in Daniel
precludes any attempt to make Daniel 'end' with Antiochus (164 BCE).
(5) The Mysterious World-Leader has three important characteristics:
(a) He is descended from those who originally worshipped God,
quite possibly but not certainly Israelites or Jews:
The phrase "god of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37 a) is usually suggestive of those who
actually knew the true God, i.e., descendents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Jews.

(b) He ends up as an atheist, not honouring any 'god' but himself.

(c) He has no regard for the desire of women,
apparently not heterosexual, probably homosexual (as was common in
military cults) or possibly asexual (having no interest in sex).

Thus collectively he appears to be a homosexual atheist Jewish warlord.

No such world leader has yet appeared as such, clearly fulfilling
ALL of the necessary traits without ambiguity...

Several candidates offer themselves: Hitler (half-Jewish?), Stalin (Closet Jew?)... but nothing that clinches the position.

And in any case the 'novelty' Jewish/Roman-Catholic interpretation
appears to be artificial, unnecessarily complex and obscurantist,
and since it is based on the vision of people like Rashi who rejected Jesus as Messiah,
it must also be rejected by Christians as wrong-headed, and confused.
It represents intellectuals without inspiration groping in the dark
for historical explanations that will satisfy 'higher critical' sentiments
about the impossibility of prophecy, and the classification of Daniel
as an apocalyptic 'pseudo-authored' 'late pious forgery'.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Jesus' Omniscience, and Mark 13:32

Scriptural Evidence FOR Jesus' Omniscience

First of all, let us start on the right foot,
by examining the Scriptural evidence for the Omniscience of Jesus:

"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."

(John 16:30)

"Jesus knew that the Father had put all things 

under His own power,..." (John 13:3)

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that 
should come upon him,..." (John 18:4)

Collectively, John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus knew all things,
because all things had been placed in His own power and control.

The disciples here are under the belief that Jesus is Omniscient.

Its hard to believe that Jesus would at the very end of His 3 - 5 year ministry
have left all the Apostles under such a belief, if it were a mistaken one,
or a misunderstanding.  Jesus would have straightened them out.

Even in Acts when Jesus ascends to heaven, the Disciples ask Jesus
about the restoration of Israel. If they had thought at that time
that Jesus didn't know the time, they wouldn't have asked Him.
Jesus responds "Its not for YOU to know..." (Acts 1:7)
He doesn't say "I don't know..."

Jesus here in His last speech just before His ascension,
has the perfect opportunity to straighten them out,
and the chance to deny His own omniscience,
if it were a misconception needing correction.

He could have said "I don't know this, and so I don't know 'everything'."
Instead He tells them the information is being withheld,
because they are not meant to receive it.

Joseph Benson's  Bible Commentary (1857)
seems to be the first English publication to openly
deny the omniscience of Jesus:
"It is said in Luke 2:52, that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. He increased in wisdom, and consequently in his human nature he was not omniscient. may be said, that though as God he might know all things, yet he might be ignorant of some things as man. And of this particular the Messiah might be ignorant, because it was no part of his office or commission to reveal it. It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power, as our Saviour said, Acts 1:7, when a like question was proposed to him.  ..."   
 - (Benson's Commentary on Mark 13:32)
Rather than appealing to the Greek original here, which could have cleared up
the question simply, Benson has relied upon the KJV / AV English translation,
which has incorporated some imprecise translation with a bit of shakey interpreting from previous translators.

We have already dealt with  both Luke 2:52 and Acts 1:7 above,
and now all that is left really on this is a careful analysis of Mark 13:32.
 The Synoptic passage originating in Mark (13:32) has been mistranslated.
We have written about it before.
Matthew (24:36), copying Mark is not independent,
and translators following the KJV and prior translators have let us down here.

He doesn't have to be 'always omniscient'.

This scripture, if it applies to knowledge per se, (as opposed to wisdom)
is said of Jesus' childhood, not His ministry as Messiah.

For that we need to refer to what is said concerning THAT time:
"Now we know that You know all things,
and have no need for anyone to question You;
by this we believe that You came from God."
(John 16:30)
Note please that this is also an UNCONDITIONAL flat statement,
unqualified and incredibly misleading if the Apostles have gotten it wrong
at the Last Supper and Garden of Gethsemane.

If both scriptures are true, and we have no reason to doubt their plain meaning,
then Jesus increased in wisdom as a growing child and teen,
and was omniscient as a complete and perfect Messiah.

The only scriptures which appear to be contrary (in the English translation only)
are those of Mark 13:32 and its derivatives (copied and modified) by Matthew and Luke.

We turn to Mark first, and find:
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father.
(KJV/KJV 2000)

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ
οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ
(Greek text, no significant variants)

'εἰ' means "if" and 'μὴ' means "not".

Its really that simple, and the sentence is actually a coordinated pair of clauses.

Its a Conditional Sentence, that states outcomes which are dependent
upon conditions.

Its not a flat unconditional statement of fact,
but its a hypothetical, contingent Conditional Sentence,
which cannot be simplified into unconditional flat statements.

Its not conveying an unconditional truth,
but a conditional and hypothetical set of possibilities,
which may have various outcomes.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Daniel (Pt 20): The Structure of Daniel

Two things must be acknowledged about the Book of Daniel:

(1)  Its composite structure.

(2)  The fact that it is not unique in this feature.

Many O.T. and even N.T. books have a composite structure.

Genesis for example is actually a collection of nine 'booklets', or ancient Diary Entries, either by contemporary eyewitnesses (early sections), or generational historians (later sections).  As it accumulates, it becomes a tribal and finally a national history to the time of Moses.   Its highly doubtful Moses wrote it himself.   Rather the tribes have in Genesis surrendered a shared historical account.

Both Kings and Chronicles openly acknowledge using previous written records, currently now lost.

Even prophetic books, such as Isaiah, contain block-sections that have apparently been inserted from historical accounts, in order to provide context and meaning to Isaiah's original prophecies.  Isaiah chapters 36-37 for instance appear to be an early version of or have been borrowed and edited by the compiler of Kings. (Kings 18:13-19:37)

The parallel sections of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah
form a kind of simplified O.T. Synoptic Problem:

2Kings 18:13       = Isaiah 36:1
2Kings 18:14-16  =                        / 2Chronicles 32:2-8
2Kings 18:17-37  = Isaiah 36:2-22   / 2Chronicles 32:9-19
2Kings 19:1-5     = Isaiah 37:1-4     / 2Chronicles 32:20
2Kings 19:6,7     = Isaiah 37:6,7
2Kings 19:8-19   = Isaiah 37:8-20   / 2Chronicles 32:17
2Kings 19:20-37 = Isaiah 37:21-38  / 2Chronicles 32:21
2Kings 20:1-11   = Isaiah 38          / 2Chronicles 32:24
2Kings 20:12-19 = Isaiah 39:1-8

 Likewise, it is acknowledged by Luke himself and commentators, that Luke and also Matthew have used Mark as a base for their own fuller gospel story.

Both of these books treat their source material in blocks.

Many other authentic and historical books from about the same period,
also include and incorporate documents by others, even in other languages.

Thus we have Ezra-Nehemiah in its final form being merged into a single scroll,
and inside those books we find quotations from Persian rulers in Aramaic.

Similarly, the Book of Esther references court records and/or laws and even conversations by non-Jewish persons involved in the events described.

So it should be no surprise that in its final form,
the book of Daniel represents an organized collection of stories about Daniel,
along with written records by Foreign Rulers, and also Daniel's own writings.

It should be recognized without serious difficulty, that such collections were
originally produced for many prophets by their companions, assistants, helpers, and contemporary historians.

This is obviously the case for Elijah (and his servant and successor Elisha),
Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch, and the followers of Isaiah, who organized
and collected the stories and sayings of these great prophets.

In Daniel's case, we may surmise that such records and collections were made and preserved by Daniel's companions, and Jewish organizers such as Ezra and Nehemiah.

When we turn to the contents of Daniel, we can see a simple and expected structure, along with features that can be reasonably explained, even when
they are unique in their degree or extent.

The Structure of Daniel has remarkable, but not inexplicable features,
given its circumstance and the era in which it was produced:

To begin with, the first, and then the 9th to 12th chapters are written in Biblical Hebrew similar to Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.  The middle chapters are written in Aramaic quite contemporary with the Babylonian and Persian periods.

The 1st chapter serves as an introduction and provides the historical setting for the book.  The last chapters claim to be final prophetic chapters by Daniel himself (more on that later).  The middle (Aramaic) sections form the bulk of the stories about Daniel as a court minister with the Babylonians and Persians.

This core of the book (chapters 2-7) seems to be the original collection,
completely written in Aramaic, and it forms a remarkable Chiastic Structure,
indicating it is all of a single piece and composition.

In contrast, the remaining Hebrew portions of the book show no awareness
or at least concern at all for the Chiastic structure, and simply offer a sequential set of three more dream-prophecies.

Since the book is demonstrably a composite work, attempts by critics to date
the entire book as a unit are in fact worthless.

The biggest criticisms, namely that the 'author' is only aware of and
mostly concerned about the period under the Greeks,
especially Antiochus (c. 167 BC), only really apply to one chapter,
namely Chapter 11.
But this was probably the very last section (chapters 10-12 are a unit)
added to the book, and as a unit it is quite different than all other parts.

The strongest criticism therefore would most effectively suggest
that the last three chapters were added, and that the rest of the book
must in that case be much older.

We have a similar situation with the Book of Enoch, where
demonstrably foreign and later sections were added,
in the simplest manner, namely tagging them on on the end of the original.

Although Chapter 12 is of interest since it mentions the resurrection,
several other parts of the Aramaic core also reference this common belief.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

The Meaning of "Under the Law" in Paul's Writings

This Post is to meant to clear up an important point of translation/interpretation found in the writings of Paul the Apostle.

It is in response to another thread "Not under the Law", which unfortunately contains disinformation and is misleading.

We did a deep study of this, involving, Koine Greek, modern English idioms, and also translational practices, and present our findings again here.


To begin, we believe that most will agree at least on the basic meaning of the modern English idiom, "under the Law".

We also agree as to the basic intent of this common modern English idiom:

Greek Idioms and their Meaning:

Turning now to Paul and the original Greek, we find several similar idioms in the New Testament, each with its own meaning:


(1) Romans 8:7 (ὑποτάσσεται τῷ νόμῳ) This is a full Greek idiom but not closely matching the modern English idiom above:

"Therefore the carnal mind is at enmity with God; For it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can it be."

διότι τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν; 
τῷ γὰρ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται·
This can be rendered in a variety of ways in English, because English is rich in idioms of similar impact and meaning. The verb "be subject to" or "submit" is effective and clear in its meaning and import in both Greek and English.

The point here should be further expounded: Paul does not say that the 'fleshly mind' is not obligated to keep the Law, but rather that it is incapable of obedience, which the Law nonetheless demands.

So "(not) obligated to keep" or "(not) under authority to" is actually an improper rendering here. Paul means that the 'fleshly mind' is in a state of transgression through wilful disobediance of the Law.


(2) Romans 3:19 (ἐν τῷ νόμῳ) - This is another Greek expression which carries similar meaning to the modern English idiom above:

"We know that whatever the Law (Torah) says, it speaks to those under the Law (Torah), so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may become accountable to God."
Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει, τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ, καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ·
The Greek here is literally "in the Law". This is a Greek idiom for "under the Law" in the modern English sense.

And it is translated just so, in the KJV (AV) and in many other more modern translations as well. The reason is essentially 'dynamic equivalence' or simply matching the meaning rather than the form of the Greek into good English.
In English, "in the Law" would actually be ambiguous, and possibly confusing.

In this case, the English translations generally are correct, clear and unambiguous, and carry the original intent of Paul quite well.


(3) Galat. 5:18 (υπο νομον) - "under the Law" (i.e., = under judgement, condemned by the Law, under the penalty prescribed for breaking the Law). Here we find a new expression, a different Greek idiom, with a more sinister meaning:

"...the fruit of the Spirit is love, patience, loyalty, self-control...
If you are led by the Spirit,
you are not under the Law  (i.e., condemned) ...
because against these things there is no Law."
(Gal 5:22-23a, 18, 5:23b)

  ... ει δε πνευματι αγεσθε ουκ εστε υπο νομον   (Gal. 5:18)
       πραοτης εγκρατεια κατα των τοιουτων ουκ εστιν νομος  (Gal. 5:23b)
Before proceeding, we note that this phrase (υπο νομον) "under the Law" does not occur elsewhere at all in the entire Old Testament, nor is it found in any of the Gospels, or Acts, or Revelation, or the Letters/Epistles of Peter, John or James.

It appears ONLY in Romans, 1st Cor. and Galatians. That is, it is an idiom unique to Paul, possibly originating in his Pharisee training and background. Since it is a technical term possibly invented or coined by him, we must look to Paul to explain its meaning for us, by his own usage and exposition.

Thankfully, Paul provides the definition for us right in Galatians, the first letter to use this phrase.

Here Paul clearly says we are not under the Law, because we are no longer breaking it: "against these things (that we do, led by the Spirit) there isn't any law!".

The idea here is that Paul is claiming we are no longer under condemnation, because we are not transgressing the Law, since we have passed out from under what the Law condemns, and into what the Law approves!

Paul's whole argument would be pointless if the Law were actually cancelled and/or simply no longer applied to Christians, regardless of their behaviour.

In that case, Paul would have simply said,
"You are not under the Law, because it is no longer valid.", or perhaps,
"You are not under the Law, because it doesn't apply to Christians."
The converse of this teaching is equally clear:

We remain under the Law in Paul's sense, when we continue transgressing it
by doing the works of the flesh, and committing sin, i.e., law breaking. Neither Paul's argument, nor its corollary would work if the Law were no longer in existance and/or applicable to Christians.

This meaning for (υπο νομον) "under the Law" (= condemned) is entirely different from the modern English phrase "under the Law" ('obligated to keep it').

The idea that we need not obey the Commandments finds no support from Paul here.
And we certainly cannot arrive at an adequate understanding of Paul's meaning in this case by applying modern idioms in translation which are completely foreign to the Greek idiom Paul is using here.

We'll need Paul's own definition of this phrase (υπο νομον) "under the Law" again, to interpret properly other places where he uses the same expression. (i.e., Rom. 6:14-15, 1st Cor.9:20-21, Gal 3:23, 4:4-5, 21, 5:18).


When Paul actually suspends (or more accurately limits the application of) certain laws/obligations, (e.g., the food laws, circumcision and Jewish festivals), we have to look elsewhere for the explanation.

It cannot be found in any novel theory of lawlessness, or 'vanishing obligations' to the Law.

For more on Paul and the Law, try our other posts.

A poster writes:

My Response:  This I think is the crux of your position. Unfortunately, it seems to go far beyond the text as it actually stands, and against the natural logic of Paul's arguments elsewhere.

Take for instance the following quotation also:
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
- Romans 6:14-15 (NKJV) 
Notice the last verse in particular, following up the phrase (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law"

This is precisely the phrase we are seeking to interpret, and Paul provides an immediate context and set of assumptions for us:

(1) It is possible to sin after accepting grace.
- so then, should we?

(2) The definition of "sin" hasn't changed at all here. It has been predefined by the Law, and Paul feels no inconsistency, and no need to re-define it by other terms.

Paul simply asks the plain and straightforward rhetorical question,
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?
- and answers it immediately with a resounding "no": Certainly not!

What does Paul expect of the reader at this point? He has not claimed that the Law is no longer in effect. He has not re-defined "sin" by some other means or yardstick other than the Moral Code of Moses (Law, Torah).

He certainly hasn't provided any argument here suggesting a new way of defining "sin", or a new world in which the Law of Moses is irrelevant. Instead, he asks his (mostly Jewish) readers to think INSIDE the box they've always been accustomed to.

The question they have on their mind quite naturally is this:

Is Paul teaching lawlessness?
(its what the controversy surrounding Paul is all about!)
And Paul's answer is a full denial of that charge, on the Jewish hearers' terms!

Is Paul suggesting that Jews or Gentiles can now or should now commit what are recognized 'sins' according to the Law of Moses? Paul answers NO!

Paul is here clearly continuing what he begun in the first verse of the same chapter:

'Shall we continue in sin, so that grace may abound? Certainly not!' (Rom. 6:1)
And again, Paul continues this line of thinking about "sin" and our obligation to stop sinning and keep the basic requirements of the moral code. Verse 6:16 is a logical continuation of the same idea:

'You are the servants of whom you obey:
whether of SIN unto death,
or of OBEDIANCE unto righteousness.' (6:16)
Again, what is the natural sense of these verses? That we can now do anything we want? That "sin" has been re-defined on some other measuring-rod? Or rather that our new-found "grace" frees us to FULFILL the Law, and AVOID sin?

Paul continues, not substituting the Law for some other measure, but using it over and over again, as though it were not only perfectly valid, but was the test of the truth of all his own arguments:

'Know you not, brothers, that the Law (Torah) has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (I speak to those who know the Law)' (7:1)
Later on it is true, he begins a series of difficult and subtle arguments regarding a kind of personal "death" inside a truly repentant Christian, namely the "death of the desires of the flesh", but even here the discussion is Spiritual if not symbolic. He assumes each reader is not a ghost or a corpse but a human being who is very much still alive.

The point is this: Even if Paul later on takes us on a theological, soteriological and philosophical journey to advanced matters, our question remains:
What does Paul mean HERE, when and where he uses the actual phrase (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law", not 'What does Paul say somewhere else?'

For we cannot understand Paul properly or treat him adequately unless we understand EVERYTHING he writes and take it seriously as it stands. Our doctrines and dogmas must come AFTER we have thoroughly understood everything Paul says, when and where he says it.

The natural sense of (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law", in this second example also, is just this: "under judgment", i.e., under condemnation for being in a state of transgression against "the Law" (Torah), - the Covenant of Moses.

Paul implies that Christians are NOT (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law", meaning we are not "under judgement" (condemnation). But that does not mean we should go back (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law" (under condemnation), by transgressing it again.

Paul never implies here that we are NOT (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law", in the modern sense that we don't have to obey the ethical and moral code revealed by God to humankind on Mount Sinai (i.e., the Ten Commandments).

Rather Paul suggests we abstain from lawbreaking, and by this means (following the Holy Spirit, which by implication would never lead us into lawbreaking) stay out from (υπο νομον) "under (the) Law", that is, not become criminals again.


Again, Another poster develops a doctrine that the Law and the ethical standard it represents is no longer applicable to Christians.

But this is not the meaning of Paul at all. Instead, Paul, like John the Baptist and Jesus before him, is announcing a ONE-TIME AMNESTY to all of Fallen Israel in the Diaspora, and all of mankind (the Gentiles, Greeks and Romans etc.).

Its a Conditional Pardon, an Amnesty WITH TERMS, one of them being to REPENT, meaning STOP SINNING. It is not a license to continue in lawlessness or sin, and it is not an announcement that sin has been re-defined.

Sin is still defined by the public declaration and expounding found in the Ten Commandments and their accompanying guidelines, and men are still required to STOP SINNING.

Imagine if you had a country with an ongoing civil war tearing it apart. The benevolent government makes a public announcement of a COMPLETE AND UTTER PARDON to ALL REBELS who PUT DOWN THEIR WEAPONS AND STOP FIGHTING.

That is the New Testament Covenant in a nutshell: it bypasses the Old Covenant (the Torah) and bypasses all the punishments prescribed therein. How can Christ do this? Because Christ speaks for God the Father Himself, and the offer of Amnesty is from the ultimate authority, God.

Men are not asked to abandon the Law, but they are asked to RETURN to its moral and ethical standard, in exchange for a PARDON of all past transgressions. Included in the package is a restoration and redeeming of Israel out of her sins, and a BETTER COVENANT with new terms and more power.

But sin remains the same, and the basic moral Law and universal principles remain the same too: Thou shalt not murder, bear false witness, commit robbery, adultery, idolatry etc.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Better Translations result in Uniform Doctrine

(1) True Doctrine: Jesus knows all things. No exceptions.

Jn. 16:30, Jn. 21:17, end of story for those who believe that
Jesus revealed truth to the apostles rather than misleading them.

The Spirit of God remains in Him - never leaves, constantly teaches.

So how do we reconcile this doctrine with the seeming idea
that the Father knows something that the Son does not?


You can learn all about Conditional Sentences here:


"But about that day or hour no one knows,
not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,
but only the Father."


περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν,
οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν οὐρανῷ, οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός,
εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ.

- Textus Receptus (Scrivener, Majority Text etc.)

ACTUAL Word for Word:

'But concerning that day and that hour, no one knows,
not even the angels in heaven,
not even the Son,
IF NOT the Father."

That is, no one knows, if the Father doesn't know.

Jesus is not here saying He himself doesn't know the time.
Jesus is instead asserting HOW He knows everything.
Jesus is saying His knowledge comes from His Father in Heaven.

The crappy translators have not only mistranslated a Conditional phrase,
'IF NOT' (εἰ μὴ) as if it were an UNCONDITIONAL flat statement,
but they have also ADDED the world "only" (μονος) to Jesus' saying,
in order to force it to say what they want it to say.

But the Greek word 'only' (μονος) isn't even a variant in any known manuscript.

EVERY Greek text of the N.T. agrees that 'only' (μονος) isn't in the text.

You can check UBS, Nestle, Westcott/Hort, Farstaad, Stephanus, Beza, John Mill, Wetstein, and even Pierpont.


(2) "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." - Matt. 23:36

Another classic MISTRANSLATION.

It exactly parallels ANOTHER mistranslation in Luke,
as Jesus speaks on the cross to the robber:
And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.

And Jesus said to him, "Amen I say to you, THAT DAY you will be with me in paradise."
The day in question is referring to the day Jesus comes into His kingdom.
"That day" is a prior reference to the robber's speech, which
does not indicate at all WHEN that day will come.

In fact Jesus confirms that it can't be "today" as translators have tried to insert.
Jesus says on the THIRD DAY, "I have not yet ascended to my Father".
He was dead for three days.

There is no Greek word for "Today". That is a modern English contraction and idiom.
Nor is there any way to distinguish between "this" and "that".
This again is a modern English nuance which does not exist in ancient Greek.

Similarly, Matthew's phrase should be rendered,

"THAT generation"
, i.e., the generation that witnesses those things.

Not "THIS generation" as if He was referencing absolute time.