John 6:44 Prevenient Grace

[psimmond]

Hi Homer,
I understand ekklesia should probably be translated "assembly" or "called out ones" (LITV uses assembly), but I don't understand what your point is with regard to baptizo. As far as I can tell, baptize, which is a transliteration of baptizo, shares a common definition with the original Greek.

[psimmond]

Another thought about prevenient grace:

Is it possible that the verses which reference both grace and salvation refer to a specific gift of God such as the sending of His Son OR to a general grace such as the revelation of truth that comes through observing all that exists around us? In other words, is it necessary to believe that these passages refer to a supernatural work of God acting on the spiritually dead without which they could not believe?

I know what the Second Council of Orange declared, but how certain can we be that Semipelagianism is unscriptural?

[DanielGracely]

Alastair,
Thanks for the encouragement. Truthfully, posting on sites usually gets on my nerves, though sometimes I find myself drawn to it. At other times I just stay away.

BTW I recently finished up a book about the Daniel 9:25-26a prophecy. It's been an on again off again project since about March. Writing a book on a spritual topic always leaves me drained, with nerves shot. Still, I'm debating whether to share here on this forum some of the things I've learned. But it looks like there's not much sympathy with premil ideas, so maybe that would be a waste of time. Here are a few things I've learned, though. (Well, I guess I'm sharing!) One is my belief that the 70 year Exile was only 69 'normal' years. I arrived at this conclusion when I asked myself why Christ would have had an expectation of the Jews that they should have known "in this thy day" the things that pertained to them. Now, someone might say, "Well, of course, Jesus did many miracles and his name was abuzz, and that's all it means. My own opinion if different, and that Christ had this expectation because the Jews had something in their history that alerted them to this. I decided it might be the Exile, and that the 70 years were perhaps only 360 day years (not 365+ days years), hence Christ's expectation that the Jews should have known in "this thy day" the things that pertained to them. In other words, 70 years of 360 days each equal 69 years and 2 days, almost exactly one year short, and I believe this was to help raise the question among the Jews as to why this was, and whether Daniel's prophecy of weeks should be similarly understood. Thus the Messiah would, if accepted by the people, restore the Earth to its original Edenic-like state, and the earth to its original 30 day month, 360 day year (we know at creation there was a 360 day year because of statements in Gen. chaps. 7 and 8, when a period of 5 months is expressed as 150 days). Incidentally, the dates for the exile do not allow for 70 'normal' years, but only up to 69.5. (This would take some explaining.)

Another note: once the gospel chronologies are properly understood, the Day of Triumphal Entry is shown to have occurred on the 10th of Nisan ('Palm' Monday), the crucifixion on the 14th of Nisan (Friday), and the Resurrection on the 16th of Nisan, which accords exactly with Old Testament symbolism (the 10th of Nisan is when the lamb was separated from the flock for its intended purpose of sacrifice, the 14th is when it was slain, and the 16th was the First -Fruits wave offering, which symbolizes Resurrection.

Another thing I've learned is an explanation behind why Jeremiah puts the deportation of Jehoiachin in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, while 2 Kings puts it in Neb's 8th year. Also, in the course of this study my brother and I discovered that Solomon's Sea contains the Golden Ratio (or Golden Mean), the most important mathematical relationship in Classical and Renaissance Art. Wikipedia assumes the standard line that the Golden Ratio originated in the 6th Century BC with Pathagoras, but we show that Solomon incorporated it into the design of the Brozne Sea in the 10th century BC. The reason this is significant is because some skeptics argue that the Bible rounds off its numbers, as in Solomon's Sea, but we show that the numbers should be taken literal and exact. Thus the "30-cubit line" which is said to encircle the Sea was not at the brim, but below it.

Finally, I explain how one could take literally Jesus' simile of his burial to Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth, and yet understand it to be 36 hours, not 72. The key (I believe) lies in how the Greek word "kai" behaves in ironic contexts, which I argue can behave as an adversative (but don't expect to find that use of "kai" in the lexicons).

So it's been a very interesting study, if a draining one. Maybe I will copy and paste this under another and more appropriate section. Or maybe not. Anyhow, good hearing from you.
Dan
p.s. My conclusions are that the 69 weeks of Daniel ran from April 6, 444 BC to April 27, 33 AD, with the crucifixion on May 1 and Resurrection on May 3. These are all Julian dates BTW.

[steve]

Hi Homer,
I understand ekklesia should probably be translated "assembly" or "called out ones" (LITV uses assembly), but I don't understand what your point is with regard to baptizo. As far as I can tell, baptize, which is a transliteration of baptizo, shares a common definition with the original Greek.

Homer could answer this himself, but since he hasn't done so yet, I will clarify his point. "Baptizo" means "immerse". Had it been translated that way in the KJV, it would have challenged the non-immersing form of baptism practiced in the Church of England. Therefore, the translators were not allowed to translate it, but only to transliterate it—thus concealing the meaning of the Greek word in the scriptures.

[DanielGracely]

Hi psimmond,
Even if all translations are not biased in the exact same way, they all have a responsibility to the original language and grammar. Yet this they all betimes neglect. Again, the phrase “and they shall never perish” in John 10:28 is not future indicative, but middle subjunctive, and of the 11 or 12 translations shown on BlueLetterBible.com not one of them gets it correct. (This type of error is hardly an isolated example.) Why, it appears, would you or any Christian suppose translators deserve an automatic immunity for their ‘translations’ simply based on ‘scholarly’ consensus and credentialism? Is your trust really in the Word, or is it in tradition? For you seem unwilling or unable to give any grammatical explanation for the ‘future indicative’ translation of the above phrase in John 10:28. The Word is precious, and we must guard it carefully. For however correct translations might generally be, they are not infallible, and translation errors can and have had grave import.

[psimmond]

Dan, you're right. I am "unable to give any grammatical explanation for the ‘future indicative’ translation of the above phrase in John 10:28." The truth is, I don't even know what "future indicative" or "middle subjunctive" means
I'm 42 with a wife and 4 kids and no desire to learn Greek. This is why I lean on "‘scholarly’ consensus and credentialism." That's not to say that my trust is in tradition over the Word! And I certainly don't "suppose translators deserve an automatic immunity for their ‘translations.’"

I'm glad there are people like you that are knowledgeable when it comes to Greek grammar and can hold the translators accountable or at least point out their errors. But in my ignorance, I have no reason to believe that your interpretation is better than the one I find used in the 9 versions that I have in e-Sword. So I lean on scholarly consensus and depend on the Holy Spirit to show me otherwise if my beliefs are wrong and need to change.

Peace and love along with faith,
Peter