The Trinity

[Shermana]

god didnt buy anything. acts was written a long time after jesus had been dead

these words are from someone who never met, knew, talked to, or heard one word from jesus.

repeating dogma does not prove the trinity

It clearly says "the blood of his own", the Darby and RSV attest to this, the RSV even includes the word "son" with a footnote that says "in the blood of his own".

Numerous dishonest translations outright throw out the "Tou" before "his own", that's blatant scripture twisting on their part.

 

[Pegg]

Yes, but I think I've given far more evidences than he did

First of all, the vast majority of translations render it "his own blood"

a popular rendering does not prove accuracy.

Second, as I said, nowhere in the NT is "tou idiou" (through all of its forms) used as a substantive referring to Christ.
Rather, "του ιδιου υιου" is used, as in Romans 8:32.
"His own Son" was used, but never has "his own" been used to refer to the Son.

in many verses the phrase 'his own' describes a personal relations or family relations. So it can also mean Gods personal family relation in this verse too.


Third, all the occurrences of this form in the NT:
[article + noun1 + article + ἴδιος], which is like "του αιματος του ιδιου", have του ιδιου as an adjective, and I mentioned them all in my previous post.

Which makes the more likely translation of "του αιματος του ιδιου": "his own blood"

Let me just ask you if that rendering agrees with the following scriptures:

1John 1:7 However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son

Can these verses agree with Acts 20:28 when it is rendered as 'Gods blood' rather then the 'blood of his Son' ?

 

[Mark2020]

a popular rendering does not prove accuracy.

The majority surely counts.
Not only of modern English translations, but also of ancient translators like Pe****ta and Coptic.

Let me just ask you if that rendering agrees with the following scriptures:

1John 1:7 However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin
(1 John 1:7 [WHNU]) εαν δε εν τω φωτι περιπατωμεν ως αυτος εστιν εν τω φωτι κοινωνιαν εχομεν μετ αλληλων και το αιμα ιησου του υιου αυτου καθαριζει ημας απο πασης αμαρτιας
No idiou.
ιησου is possessive genitive
του υιου αυτου is an adjective not possessive genitive.

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son
(John 3:16 [WHNU]) ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον
Again, no idiou.
τον μονογενη is adjective.

Can these verses agree with Acts 20:28 when it is rendered as 'Gods blood' rather then the 'blood of his Son' ?

Well, the first is genitive adjective. (like my interpretation.)
The second is accusative adjective.

Edit:
Actually, your question is a little difficult to understand. But I gave all the verses that agree with Acts 20:28 in the previous post, I mean in Greek.
There is no reference in Greek to the word "Son" whatsoever. It was all about interpreting or rather misinterpreting του ιδιου.
I showed that all occurrences of this word in such construct are rendered as adjective, like "his own brother"

 

[Mark2020]

This is for Shermana: You are wrong. Acts 4:12 is a reference to Jesus, and even if it was not, how to you explain John 14:6?

Yes, it sure is about Jesus. Very obvious from reading the whole chapter.
Many commentaries here:
http://biblecommenter.com/acts/4-12.htm

But just for the sake of fun, compare these two posts in this thread:

How ironic, a perfect example of possible deliberate misreading, or genuine confusion.[wow] Clearly you can see that this is about Romans 10 and differentiating "Lord" from "LORD". Paul was referring to the Father in Romans 10 when he quotes Joel. Perhaps you didn't read where I said there's a difference between "No other name under Heaven" and "Calling upon a name". If you'd like to get into this, you'll have to start by explaining what Joel 2:32 is about.

Acts 4:12 has nothing to do with "Calling upon his name". A major difference. Acts 4:12 refers to the son, who is the only name under Heaven who serves as the Guilt Offering.

Acts 4:12 is talking about G-d who gave Jesus as the only "name" in whom salvation is found, and the point was about the contextual difference of "CALLING" upon a name which is a recitation of Joel 2:32. Why don't you quote me so I can see what exactly I said you disagree with.

John 14:6 is easy to explain, Yashua is the gatekeeper. No one comes to the Father except through him, what's so hard to understand? Even a Trinitarian has to accept they are separate beings in that verse.

 

[Shermana]

The NLT does a decent job conveying what I tried to say. The word "Given" must be understood in context.

http://nlt.scripturetext.com/acts/4.htm

New Living Translation (©2007)
There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved."

 

[Mark2020]

The NLT does a decent job conveying what I tried to say. The word "Given" must be understood in context.

And who needs NLT if one can read Greek?
Don't make it worse than it already is.

 

[outhouse]

It clearly says "the blood of his own", the Darby and RSV attest to this, the RSV even includes the word "son" with a footnote that says "in the blood of his own".

Numerous dishonest translations outright throw out the "Tou" before "his own", that's blatant scripture twisting on their part.

oh your translation is right


acts

Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is said to be that the author of the Gospel of Luke is the same as the author of the Acts of the Apostles

However, there is no consensus, and according to Raymond E. Brown, the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship is ‘about evenly divided’.

so we dont even know if luke wrote it


A key contested issue is the historicity of Luke's depiction of Paul. According to one viewpoint, Acts describes Paul differently from how he describes himself, both factually and theologically

Some believe that Acts differs with Paul's letter on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church.[11] Such scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts



Acts features the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" on Pentecost[38] and the subsequent spirit-inspired speaking in tongues


great acts places the spirit as a babbling crazy talk and then states "The Holy Spirit is shown guiding the decisions and actions of Christian leaders"

 

[Mark2020]

oh your translation is right

Yes, and what a proof you gave!

 

[outhouse]

Yes, and what a proof you gave!

scripture is more then knowing which language it was originally written in.

Knowing what the author said is great, hats off to you there. Knowing what was edited and by who and what time period, well that is priceless

 

[Pegg]

Edit:
Actually, your question is a little difficult to understand. But I gave all the verses that agree with Acts 20:28 in the previous post, I mean in Greek.
There is no reference in Greek to the word "Son" whatsoever. It was all about interpreting or rather misinterpreting του ιδιου.
I showed that all occurrences of this word in such construct are rendered as adjective, like "his own brother"

it is only a difficult question because the rendering of the verse is biased toward the trinitarian view. To put that verse as 'Gods blood' means that the other verses are out of harmony....they say Jesus blood. But trinitarians like to make people believe that Jesus is God, so they render that verse differently.

It might add credence to the trinity doctrine, but it does no justice to the Holy scriptures if a verse is rendered in such a way that it contradicts other verses.

 

[Mark2020]

it is only a difficult question because the rendering of the verse is biased toward the trinitarian view. To put that verse as 'Gods blood' means that the other verses are out of harmony....they say Jesus blood. But trinitarians like to make people believe that Jesus is God, so they render that verse differently.
....

I think it was clear from my post is that your request was difficult to understand. You asked me to compare 2 verses with the verse at question in Greek, if that's what you meant. If what you meant is the English translation, then yes too, since Jesus is God. No contradiction.

When I discuss languages and translations, I only use grammar rules, grammar references and comparison to other similar locations in the bible, not my belief to give a certain translation. If you read my first post, you might note that. I've given solid proof to my view.

You can contrast this to:
"2. The smoothest and simplest reading is the adjectival reading, "his own blood." I don't know of anyone who disputes this fact. Again, as noted above, the NWT Reference Bible appendix acknowledges that this would be "the usual translation.""
For an Answer: Chrsitian Apologetics - Acts 20:28

They even add a word to the verse that's not there in Greek manuscripts ("son"). I think this counts as biased translation. There is many twisting in translation in the NWT, even words changing from edition to the next one to cancel any reference to the divinity of Christ (like Heb 1:6, which changed from "worship" in 1961 and 1970 to "do obeisance" in later and current editions), which I think counts as biased as well.

Here:
(Hebrews 1:6 [NIV]) And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

(Hebrews 1:6 [NWT,1961]) But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels worship him."

(Hebrews 1:6 [NWT,1984]) But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him."

It's worth mentioning that the same Greek word (προσκυνέ&#969 is translated in the NWT "worshiped" in Matthew 4:10 and Revelation 19:10 and 22:8, but only here was it changed to "do obeisance".

I am just trying to show you where the biased translation is.

 

[Pegg]

I think it was clear from my post is that your request was difficult to understand. You asked me to compare 2 verses with the verse at question in Greek, if that's what you meant. If what you meant is the English translation, then yes too, since Jesus is God. No contradiction.

When I discuss languages and translations, I only use grammar rules, grammar references and comparison to other similar locations in the bible, not my belief to give a certain translation. If you read my first post, you might note that. I've given solid proof to my view.

yes but the problem is that when translating from the greek, it is still grammatically correct to translate it as 'the blood of his son' because of the meaning of the greek words.....basically, it can be translated either way.

some tranlsators have chosen to translate it 'Gods blood' and others have chosen "the blood of Gods son" ... both are correct, but only one contradicts other verses were it clearly states Christs blood is the means for salvation.

Why make it confusing when it doesnt need to be?

You can contrast this to:
"2. The smoothest and simplest reading is the adjectival reading, "his own blood." I don't know of anyone who disputes this fact. Again, as noted above, the NWT Reference Bible appendix acknowledges that this would be "the usual translation.""
For an Answer: Chrsitian Apologetics - Acts 20:28

you are ignoring that 'blood' in that sense means a 'blood relation' One of Gods 'kin'
I can say that my daughter is my own flesh and blood. But it doesnt mean im saying she is literally my own flesh and blood. Do you see what i mean?

They even add a word to the verse that's not there in Greek manuscripts ("son"). I think this counts as biased translation. There is many twisting in translation in the NWT, even words changing from edition to the next one to cancel any reference to the divinity of Christ (like Heb 1:6, which changed from "worship" in 1961 and 1970 to "do obeisance" in later and current editions), which I think counts as biased as well.

This is called 'keeping it in context'. If you want a literal word for word translation, you can read an interlinear. But when you are translating from one language to another, it is necessary to add words that show the context.

Here:
(Hebrews 1:6 [NIV]) And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

(Hebrews 1:6 [NWT,1961]) But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels worship him."

(Hebrews 1:6 [NWT,1984]) But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him."

It's worth mentioning that the same Greek word (προσκυνέ&#969 is translated in the NWT "worshiped" in Matthew 4:10 and Revelation 19:10 and 22:8, but only here was it changed to "do obeisance".

I am just trying to show you where the biased translation is.

Its not biased. Its in keeping with context and making the meaning clearer. The footnote on this verse says:
“let . . . worship.” Gr., pro‧sky‧ne‧sa′to‧san; Lat., a‧do′rent. See 2Ki 2:15 and ftn.

Now if you scoot over to 2Kings, this is what it says:
2Kings 2:15 When the sons of the prophets that were at Jer′i‧cho saw him some way off, they began to say: “The spirit of E‧li′jah has settled down upon E‧li′sha.” Accordingly they came to meet him and bowed down to him to the earth.
The greek Septuagint translators uses the same greek word as in Hebrews: “They . . . bowed down.” Gr., pro‧se‧ky′ne‧san

That is why the NWT use the word 'obeisance' rather then 'worship' ...its in keeping with how the Jewish tranlsators render the equivalent hebrew word. The Greek pro‧sky‧ne′o corresponds to the Hebrew hish‧ta‧chawah′ which is a term which graphically conveys the thought of prostration or bowing down which is not always done as an act of worship.... bowing down can be a sign of respect to an individual. When we bow to a king or queen, its not to worship them, its to show our utmost respect for them.

 

[Mark2020]

yes but the problem is that when translating from the greek, it is still grammatically correct to translate it as 'the blood of his son' because of the meaning of the greek words.....basically, it can be translated either way.

"the blood of his own" not "the blood of his son" is possible, but grammatically, and given word usage in the new testament, very unlikely, even with the acknowledgment of the NWT Reference Bible. Choosing the very unlikely [which has no linguistic support from the bible] over the likely one [which has linguistic support from the bible] is biased and doctrine-based, at least that's how I see it.
I think I've already given many proofs favoring my view.

some tranlsators have chosen to translate it 'Gods blood' and others have chosen "the blood of Gods son" ... both are correct, but only one contradicts other verses were it clearly states Christs blood is the means for salvation. Why make it confusing when it doesnt need to be?

Actually, it's not some vs others, it's the vast majority vs few.

you are ignoring that 'blood' in that sense means a 'blood relation' One of Gods 'kin'
I can say that my daughter is my own flesh and blood. But it doesnt mean im saying she is literally my own flesh and blood. Do you see what i mean?

αιματος simply means blood, not blood relation.

This is called 'keeping it in context'. If you want a literal word for word translation, you can read an interlinear. But when you are translating from one language to another, it is necessary to add words that show the context.

You would say so. I would say fixing the context to suit their beliefs. Why didn't they keep the context from the first translation?

Its not biased. Its in keeping with context and making the meaning clearer. The footnote on this verse says:
“let . . . worship.” Gr., pro‧sky‧ne‧sa′to‧san; Lat., a‧do′rent. See 2Ki 2:15 and ftn.

Now if you scoot over to 2Kings, this is what it says:
2Kings 2:15 When the sons of the prophets that were at Jer′i‧cho saw him some way off, they began to say: “The spirit of E‧li′jah has settled down upon E‧li′sha.” Accordingly they came to meet him and bowed down to him to the earth...

Yes, it has both meanings, but how do they choose one over the other? And why did one change into the other?
To me it looks doctrine-based.

 

[Pegg]

You would say so. I would say fixing the context to suit their beliefs. Why didn't they keep the context from the first translation?

Our belief should be in harmony with all other scriptures. If you believe several verses such as:
1 John 1:7 However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Soncleanses us from all sin.

Romans 3:25 God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood.

Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God

then it is a complete contradiction to render the verse as 'Gods blood' unless you believe Jesus is God. For those of us who dont, then we render the verse in such a way that it is in harmony with all other verses because otherwise we WOULD be changing it to suit doctrine.

Yes, it has both meanings, but how do they choose one over the other? And why did one change into the other?
To me it looks doctrine-based.

They choose whatever is in harmony with other verses such as the ones i posted above.
They all say 'Jesus blood' or the 'sons blood'

So it makes sense to specify that the context is the 'sons' blood which is why the NWT puts 'son' in brackets in that verse.

“with the blood of his own [Son]” - NWT What is in brackets is what the translators add in to specify the context.

 

[Mark2020]

...
then it is a complete contradiction to render the verse as 'Gods blood' unless you believe Jesus is God. For those of us who dont, then we render the verse in such a way that it is in harmony with all other verses because otherwise we WOULD be changing it to suit doctrine.
They choose whatever is in harmony with other verses such as the ones i posted above.
They all say 'Jesus blood' or the 'sons blood'

Exactly, so it came down to belief in the end and that's doctrine-based not language-based. You can't just pick a translation because it agrees with how you understand the bible. The main factors are language and word usage. That was my point from the beginning.

So it makes sense to specify that the context is the 'sons' blood which is why the NWT puts 'son' in brackets in that verse.
“with the blood of his own [Son]” - NWT What is in brackets is what the translators add in to specify the context.

I don't think that the context of this verse requires such an addition.

 

[Pegg]

I don't think that the context of this verse requires such an addition.

and you say that because...?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Language based at 1st John 1v7 B

.....and the blood of Jesus [the Son of God] it [Jesus blood] is cleansing us from all sin.

 

[Mark2020]

and you say that because...?

I mean from reading the paragraph, if that's what you mean with context.

 

[Mark2020]

Language based at 1st John 1v7 B
.....and the blood of Jesus [the Son of God] it [Jesus blood] is cleansing us from all sin.

What has this got to do with anything?
You look like you don't know what the discussion is about!

 

[Pegg]

I mean from reading the paragraph, if that's what you mean with context.

did you know that some manuscripts have the first part of the sentence as “the congregation of the Lord,” in the margin as alternative to “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way the issue is gone and we can fully understand that it was with the Lords own blood. Moffats translation reads "congregation of the Lord'

The manuscripts are the codex Alexandrinus, codex Ephraemi, Bezae Codices and the Philoxenian Herclean Syriac.