Is it possible imperfect man writer wrote the wrong pronoun on purpose or by accident?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Return of Christ
- Thread starter InChrist
- Start date
Is it possible imperfect man writer wrote the wrong pronoun on purpose or by accident?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
If you can find a manuscript without the term "autos", it might be. Other than that, we have to exercise faith that God inspired the correct pronoun.
Matthew 5:15 uses the same pronoun "him" to describe a light under a basket and an eye.
Greek Concordance: ????? (auton) -- 961 Occurrences
Greek Concordance: ????? (auton) -- 961 Occurrences
Yes. In every writing of it. I hear the original is missing. Is it? I believe the original. Do you believe the copy?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Yes. It refers to a masculine noun (person, place, or thing). In this case, a thing (a lamp). Hence the translators correctly used the term "it". Furthermore, Rev 1:7 uses the same pronoun (autos) to state "they who pierced him [autos]" will also see him. If the passage were referring to just an event, the pronoun would have to match its antecedent and would read, "they who pierced it". You can't "pierce" an event. You can pierce an individual.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
But if the translators correctly used "it" for a lamp how does that prove they used "him" correctly about his coming? His coming is an event which is a thing.
An event is a thing not a he.
Someone is fibbing to you:
Are you saying the original manuscript is not missing? The one which is a real part of "all scripture inspired of God"?
Do you believe the body of Christ is cognizant? Is it dead or alive? If alive and the writer of Matthew is a part and I am a part then I am able to know what he wrote. No?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
And a He is a person not an event. The immediate and broad context would determine the correct usage. Many verses throughout the Old and New Testaments speak of Christ Himself returning. We also have the context of Rev 1:1-6 clearly speaking of Christ being the antecedent to the pronouns in verse 7.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Are you saying you believe something that is missing?
Of course I do! The Word is alive. Where does it say the word is what men wrote?
I believe in Christ's returning. But I don't believe in his returning to the world scene. How can he? He said "my kingdom is NO part of the world".
He returns to everyone putting faith in him. But it must be the real Jesus you believe in. The copy just won't do.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
You are going off on a tangent as usual. You can somersault around the verses all you want, the fact is the scriptures and their grammar are clear to me. Christ will return visibly. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.
Well, if you should die before it happens good luck to you too!
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Not part of this [toutou] world. Our corrupt world. But He will be King of the "next" much better world. Again, as many scriptures indicate.
OK? But his coming back to IT is a part of it. How is this not so?
That's right. Do we agree on something?
james2ko
Well-Known Member
OK? But his coming back to IT is a part of it. How is this not so?That's right. Do we agree on something?
I hope that one day when you learn to write logically and clearly, we will have a productive conversation. :shout
How is his total presence over the whole world not a part of it? He came to save sinners so maybe YOU are wrong he is no part of our "corrupt" world. Also all world's leaders are said to be in their relative positions by God. How is "by God" a "no part of"?
No part of world means not a part of the direction it is going in. If he comes visibly he will be a part of the direction it goes in.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Seriously, SW. Your logic is so bad, I can spend several pages pointing out your fallacious thinking which I neither have the desire or time to do so. The scriptures are clear to me, your logic is not.
You do not "use logic" to interpret the sciptures. You use other scriptures for your interpretations. I do not use scriptures to interpret. I use them to confirm what the spirit says to the congregations. According to you is the spirit the same or different than the written word?