Something I have Noticed

Roberto
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Roberto » Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:48 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
Roberto wrote:From this angle, Jesus could be speaking of an age not adjacent to the age that He was speaking in, but there could be an age or ages in between, rather than the angle that insists that the age to come (adjacent age) is the resurrection age.
Does that make sense?
Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying. :)

(In the passage in question there's no reference to how many ages may be in between, but it seems clear elsewhere that there's one, and only one.)
Well, that all hinges in that NIV issue under discussion. I didn't realize that that translation had been rejected. So don't get smart :)

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3340
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by steve » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:03 pm

Roberto,

The NIV is generally recognized as a less-literal translation than many. The translators commonly interpret and paraphrase, rather than translate. Not everyone knows this, and some churches use the NIV exclusively. I think this is damaging to the overall biblical literacy of their congregations.

Roberto
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Roberto » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:11 pm

Homer wrote:But what did "this age" and the "age to come" mean to Jesus who spoke the words concerning blaspheming the Holy Spirit? He seemed to know of only "this age" and that age when speaking of marriage:


Luke 20:34-36, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

34. Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35. but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36. for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.


There doesn't appear to be an age A & B in Jesus' mind. This age runs until the resurrection.
Homer, your interpretation hinges upon the NIV rendering "age to come". If it doesn't mean that ( many translations, perhaps most on Bible Gateway) do no not render it such. Looks like you have to discard that, unless you can give good reasons for such a translation, no?

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by backwoodsman » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:16 pm

Roberto wrote:Well, that all hinges in that NIV issue under discussion. I didn't realize that that translation had been rejected. So don't get smart :)
LOL (...wasn't actually meaning to get smart..)

In addition to Steve's comments, I'd add that as easy-reading (i.e. aimed at a very low reading level) translations go, NIV is arguably better than most; but unless one really needs the low reading level, there are much better choices. This is a good illustration of why it's good to check several translations, and use some other well-chosen study aids, whenever possible.

User avatar
john6809
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Summerland, B.C.

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by john6809 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:26 pm

I believe that “the age to come” is here the age in which we now live. We have received this aionios life through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Remember, “aionios life” can mean “life pertaining to the age.”
Thanks, Steve. Makes sense. The jury is still out (and may always be), but I find the theory at least plausible.
"My memory is nearly gone; but I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Savior." - John Newton

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4910
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Paidion » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:12 pm

In what way would B and C not be adjacent? I just don't understand, Roberto.

My own view is that John the Baptizer introduced a new age.

“The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached..." (Luke 16:16)

So prior to John, was age A, which included the law and the prophets (unless it would be better to make that TWO ages, pre-law and law). When the Kingdom of God appeared (Jesus the King and His disciples, the subjects), the new age of the Kingdom began—Age B. John the Baptizer's message was "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mark 1:1). That special day of Pentecost did not mark a new age, but a new phase in which the Holy Spirit was given, but still in age B. For even the apostle Paul preached the Kingdom (last verse of Acts). Age C begins with Christ's return and the resurrection of the righteous and ends when the 1000 years is up (yes, I'm a millenialist), and "The kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He shall reign for ages and ages!" (Rev. 11:15). Then begins age D. During this age God and perhaps His saints will work with the lost until all are reconciled to God. Then Jesus the Messiah will turn the Kingdom over to God that God might be all in all! (1 Cor. 15:28).

Whether D is the final age or whether the ages continue to roll forever, I don't know, but I'm inclined toward ages continuing forever.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 81.

Roberto
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Roberto » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:14 pm

"In what way would B and C not be adjacent? I just don't understand, Roberto?"

They would not be so if the NIV is correct.....

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Homer » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:19 pm

Backwoodsman,
Homer wrote:
If the Pharisees are not forgiven in ages "A" and "B", but will be forgiven in age "C", why would they be concerned with Jesus' threat? What is the risk for them?

Homer, you keep saying you know and understand the evangelical universalist position, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.
It has been acknowledged by some of UR persuasion that post-mortem repentance might happen immediately at the judgment or immediately after. So explain to me what their risk consists of. Thanks

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Homer » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:22 pm

Where is the response to this:


Seems the "never be forgiven" is the only understanding that makes practical sense of Jesus words. Especially since in Luke's telling of it:

Luke 12:10, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
10. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

"not be forgiven him" is literally "will not be forgiven" and the verb is "indicative-future-passive-third person-singular". The person will not be forgiven in the future which takes care of all ages imagined, and is consistent with all three gospels.

Roberto
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Something I have Noticed

Post by Roberto » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:18 pm

Homer wrote:Where is the response to this:


Seems the "never be forgiven" is the only understanding that makes practical sense of Jesus words. Especially since in Luke's telling of it:

Luke 12:10, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
10. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

"not be forgiven him" is literally "will not be forgiven" and the verb is "indicative-future-passive-third person-singular". The person will not be forgiven in the future which takes care of all ages imagined, and is consistent with all three gospels.
That's a good challenge. Someone will have to drag out the Greek.

Post Reply

Return to “General”