Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:24 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Because it's not germane. First of all it's a legal term that has to do with a specific legal situation. By no means does the actions of Christ demonstrate a "legal" situation.
Second, even if it were applicable than Jesus never disposed of his "estate and effects". He didn't leave any tools to anyone. In fact, the closest he got to leaving a "will" was here:
Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Joh 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
And thirdly, Christ isn't dead anymore. He's alive.
So all of these factors clearly show that the covenant referred to wasn't his "will".
Your own source exposes your dishonesty.
It's not dishonesty. Rather it's an attempt to deal with the reality of the passage. Every source I cited (and thousands I didn't cite) state that "testament" can be an archaic word for "covenant".
There IS a death required, the death of the sacrifice needed to confirm the covenant. In fact, Young's literal translation renders it:
(YLT)Heb 9:16 for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary,
Clarkes commentary says:
- A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the 17th verse: - “For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive.”
He observes, “There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. Διαθεμενος is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Gen_6:18 (note), and Gen_15:10 (note). - J. C.”
This is perfectly reasonable and acceptable for any one who isn't stuck with an interpretation based upon their own interpretation of an English translation of people who may or may not have been interpretating the greek correctly.
There IS a death required, the death of the sacrifice needed to confirm the covenant. In fact, Young's literal translation renders it: (YLT)Heb 9:16 for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, Clarkes commentary says: - A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the 17th verse: - “For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive.” He observes, “There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. Διαθεμενος is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Gen_6:18 (note), and Gen_15:10 (note). - J. C.” This is perfectly reasonable and acceptable for any one who isn't stuck with an interpretation based upon their own interpretation of an English translation of people who may or may not have been interpretating the greek correctly.
Let me put this into as clear as English as possible, because clearly you have a hard time with English.
There is no necessity of the death of one making the Covenant in order for it to go into effect.
How do we know that?
Because we see time and time again, covenants made in the Old Testament without the person dying who made it.
Now, the verse isn't saying what you are trying to make it say.
The verse says that for a covenant to go into a effect, there is a necessity of the death of the one making the covenant.
Not a death, but the death of the one making the covenant, which did not happpen in the Old Testament.
Do you understand the difference?
Can you grasp that simple fact, that the one making a covenant, did not have to die for it go into effect?
That Heb.9:16-17 is saying that for the Testament to go into effect, the one making it has to die?
Can you see the difference between the two? So, once again, stop reading what isn't there and making up your own theology.
As for your attempt to get rid of the correct reading by appealing to the 'Greek', the word is most certainly there and should be translated as testator.
The sentence doesn't even make sense without it.
So, when you can't deal with the English, you attempt to change the words.
Moreover, what we were discussing was the correctness of the NASB translation which has,
For where covenant is there also must be the death of the one making the covenant
Which, is therefore wrong even by with attempts to avoid dealing with what the scriptures actually say.
So the NASB is wrong, a covenant doesn't demand the death of the one making the covenant. as they have it.
Stop your scripture twisting.
There is?
Show me a death being mentioned in Gen. 27 with Isaac and Ablimach.
It only states that they ate and drank together, no mention of anything having to die.
Because it's not germane. First of all it's a legal term that has to do with a specific legal situation. By no means does the actions of Christ demonstrate a "legal" situation.
Ofcourse it is germane, it has to do with a Testament going into effect after the death of the testator, which is what happened after Christ's death.
Second, even if it were applicable than Jesus never disposed of his "estate and effects". He didn't leave any tools to anyone. In fact, the closest he got to leaving a "will" was here: Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Joh 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
You had better read Eph. 4:8, where iit states that He ascended and 'gave gifts to men', those were spiritual gifts.
And thirdly, Christ isn't dead anymore. He's alive.
Yes, but He had to die in order for the Testament to go into effect.
That is what the Apostles didn't understand.
So all of these factors clearly show that the covenant referred to wasn't his "will".
Ofcourse it was, because, a covenant doesn't require the death of the one making it.
Your own source exposes your dishonesty. It's not dishonesty. Rather it's an attempt to deal with the reality of the passage. Every source I cited (and thousands I didn't cite) state that "testament" can be an archaic word for "covenant".
There cannot use the word covenant in the passage since a covenant doesn't require the death of the one making it, but a Testament does.
And that is why the NASB is wrong in putting it in there as it does.
No covenant required the death of the one making it for it to go into effect.
What you are doing is simply ignoring what the passage actually says and making up your own translation.
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
That is why the next verse, begins with the word 'for', even in the YLT, because it explains how that inheritance came through the death of the one making the Testament.
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. :
And in the New Testament,
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
So, the YLT 'translation' (and Bullinger's little note next to testator=victim) doesn't fit the context, which is dealing, not with a covenant, but the passing down of an inheritance, which does require the death of the one making the Testament.
But you just go on making up your own bible, no matter how it distorts the scriptures, just like Bullinger did.
I'm just going to have to declare this subject dead. As I said There's no way we're ever going to agree because our source of authority is completely different. Plus your responses are growing increasingly hostile and insulting. So have the last word if it pleases you.
I'm just going to have to declare this subject dead. As I said There's no way we're ever going to agree because our source of authority is completely different. Plus your responses are growing increasingly hostile and insulting. So have the last word if it pleases you.
My source of authority is simple English!
The NASB reads that 'it is necessary that the one making the covenant die in order for it to go into effect' That is clearly wrong, since the one making a covenant doesn't have to die.
So than you run to YLT/Bullinger nonsense about it must be the covenant victim who must die in order for a covenant to be made.
Which does nothing to get the NASB off the hook for a wrong translation.
Yet, inserting the word 'covenant' and using it to refer to the sacrifice won't work either, since the context of the passage is an inheritance,(Heb.9:15), which has to do with the death of giving the one giving the inheritance, not the covenant sacrifice.
That is simple English, nothing complicated about it.
If I seemed harsh in my tone I apologize, but seeing the scriptures stretched to the breaking point is exasperating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.