Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Romans 3 "In Christ" or "Of Christ"?

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:46:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's all one big fallacy anyway.

Why bother?
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:53:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:46:41 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
It's all one big fallacy anyway.

Why bother?

Do you have an actual argument you would like addressed or just bare assertions. Which is one big fallacy anyways...
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 10:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:53:17 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:46:41 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
It's all one big fallacy anyway.

Why bother?

Do you have an actual argument you would like addressed or just bare assertions. Which is one big fallacy anyways...

Why yes I do...........

I'll post that soon............
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

stubs You have faith; But are NOT "IN" Jesus, your faith is not true faith!!
You are "IN" Jesus' body then you have true Faith!!

If you are NOT "IN JESUS" then the faith you have is not true faith!
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Example:Romans 3:26
he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Means.. Those who have Faith and in the Church!

Those who have faith in Jesus... Are those who are "IN Jesus" and have faith!

Ephesians 4:21
when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus.
stubs Ephesians 4:21 (above) has two: "In HIM/In Jesus" Being "IN HIM" is being IN his Body!
Being "In the CHURCH" you would be taught, you would be taught in him!!!

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

All "IN" the Body of Jesus have ..patient endurance that are ours in Jesus
The above verse has BROTHER and OURS.. meaning all In Jesus' body!

I have always believe, to be "IN Jesus" is having FAITH in Jesus!
You would NOT BE IN Jesus if you rejected Jesus' words!

stubs Accepting Jesus' words "ADDS you to Jesus' body!

Jesus' words.. "Be Baptized be ADDED to Jesus"!
All who reject baptism saves, are not ADDED to Jesus' body because they reject Jesus' words!

Believer believe the words of Jesus and are then "IN Jesus"!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:39:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:59:20 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:53:17 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:46:41 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
It's all one big fallacy anyway.

Why bother?

Do you have an actual argument you would like addressed or just bare assertions. Which is one big fallacy anyways...

Why yes I do...........

I'll post that soon............

Alright, just shoot me a message or something if you do and I don't reply. I may not have seen it, but I would love to try and address any questions you may have.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:40:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 11:05:43 PM, Dogknox wrote:
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

stubs You have faith; But are NOT "IN" Jesus, your faith is not true faith!!
You are "IN" Jesus' body then you have true Faith!!

If you are NOT "IN JESUS" then the faith you have is not true faith!
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Example:Romans 3:26
he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Means.. Those who have Faith and in the Church!

Those who have faith in Jesus... Are those who are "IN Jesus" and have faith!

Ephesians 4:21
when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus.
stubs Ephesians 4:21 (above) has two: "In HIM/In Jesus" Being "IN HIM" is being IN his Body!
Being "In the CHURCH" you would be taught, you would be taught in him!!!

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

All "IN" the Body of Jesus have ..patient endurance that are ours in Jesus
The above verse has BROTHER and OURS.. meaning all In Jesus' body!

I have always believe, to be "IN Jesus" is having FAITH in Jesus!
You would NOT BE IN Jesus if you rejected Jesus' words!

stubs Accepting Jesus' words "ADDS you to Jesus' body!

Jesus' words.. "Be Baptized be ADDED to Jesus"!
All who reject baptism saves, are not ADDED to Jesus' body because they reject Jesus' words!

Believer believe the words of Jesus and are then "IN Jesus"!

If you want to reply to what I actually said in the first post then go ahead, but if you want to discus the things you brought up please make a new thread. Thanks.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:58:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

Well... one way that could be interpreted as to all who believe (in God/Christianity), righteousness from God, or rather, the definition for the moral behavior that Romans is generally promoting, derives from the faith that Jesus had. Or, in other words, that the words and teachings of Jesus Christ provide a general definition for how one should conduct his or herself in order to be "righteous."

Another way of interpreting it is that the faith to which people subscribe is through Jesus Christ as a point of reference, which gives Christianity and the righteousness to which the verse refers context.

Speaking of context, lets take a look:

"Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood"to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished" 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

The first thing one should notice about this is that it begins with "but." Accordingly, this is clearly an appendage to whatever was stated just before it. That reads:

"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God"s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

This, to me, is a restatement of a theme that appears throughout Romans, and the New Testament, really, whereby it's made clear that maintaining any ritualistic lifestyle in an attempt to appeal to God is fallacious, and won't bring forth salvation. The best "the Law" can do for us, whatever that written law may be, even the Bible, is make us aware of an optimal way to live; how we can prevent sin. Upholding any sort of word of the law in and of itself will not suffice to make someone a righteous person.

I would say that even extends to any sort of esoteric "faith in Jesus" or "belief in Jesus." Repeatedly throughout Romans specifically, Paul recants:

"There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,"

Which, in the context of the Bible, refers to non-Christians, or "non-believers." In other words, one could call themselves an atheist and live an entirely secular life, but if he or she is righteous, that person will make it into Heaven anyway.

There is also another thing I'd like to point out here: it clearly and outright states the reason why Christ was crucified. This is a huge debate topic, to my knowledge, so I think it's worth mentioning.

It states that Jesus was an offering of Atonement -- literally, the same as offerings that God instructed Moses to provide for the Jewish people that he saved. Those instructions are here:

"3 "This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering[a] and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on. 5 From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.

6 "Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. 7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats"one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat.[b] 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat."

That chapter goes on to explain more specifically how this should be done. But, I think what's more important here is context. These weren't just random rams and bulls; they were literally chattel. Such chattel back then was extremely valuable. Providing them as a burnt offering (which, it specifically states that it's to be burned down to the fat, and then the fat is to be consumed with fire as well) literally made them unusable in any other way. Moreover, on the day they were to do this (on July 10th, annually), they weren't to work. So, they couldn't use, eat, nor replace the offering. This observance was less about killing something innocent as an act of revenge (as those animals weren't going to live past their usefulness anyway), but more like a tithe -- something they can give up to give homage to the Lord in such a way that material gain does not supersede.

However, the goat on which the sins were placed --

"20 "When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites"all their sins"and put them on the goat"s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness."

...is actually released into the wilderness as a "scapegoat." The means by which each goat chosen for sacrifice and escape is based on "casting lots," which is dice divination -- like, casting and reading bones, such as what they do in voodoo. This coincides with the whole chattel thing, but it's still a curious thing. I imagine that the reason why two of the animals required slaughter was because of the blood rituals that coincided with them exclusively. And speaking of which -- the sacrifice, the blood ritual, the horns on the altar, the repetition in the application, doesn't that sound so very...

Well, anyway, I guess that's not the point. I guess the question lay in which animal Jesus represented -- the bull, the goat, or the scapegoat. Again, I'm pretty sure it's stated that Jesus carried all of humanity's sins, and the goat that carried the Jews' sins was released into the wilderness.

So, this could be something more like God saying that He let go of something really valuable so that He can teach us the Way, even though He knew we'd kill that valuable (person/Jesus).

Just food for thought, I guess.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 8:59:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

The problem with retranslation is that you're saying little ol' you knows more than all the theologians at the Chicago '66 formation of the NIV translation.. A translation used by the Gideons and one that has taken on and vanquished all comers..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 9:11:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 8:59:54 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

The problem with retranslation is that you're saying little ol' you knows more than all the theologians at the Chicago '66 formation of the NIV translation.. A translation used by the Gideons and one that has taken on and vanquished all comers..

It's not like I'm the only one that has a problem with this translation. Some bible translations use "of Jesus Christ." If you can somehow show that even though the Greek text uses the genitive case, which shows possession, should be translated "in Jesus Christ" than I am open to hearing that. I typed the actual Greek text into Microsoft word, but it didn't paste correctly into here. http://study.interlinearbible.org... You can read the text there to see that the endings match in case, gender, and number.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 9:22:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 9:11:29 AM, stubs wrote:
At 10/22/2012 8:59:54 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

The problem with retranslation is that you're saying little ol' you knows more than all the theologians at the Chicago '66 formation of the NIV translation.. A translation used by the Gideons and one that has taken on and vanquished all comers..

It's not like I'm the only one that has a problem with this translation. Some bible translations use "of Jesus Christ." If you can somehow show that even though the Greek text uses the genitive case, which shows o, rte be translated "in Jesus Christ" than I am open to hearing that. I typed the actual Greek text into Microsoft word, but it didn't paste correctly into here. http://study.interlinearbible.org... You can read the text there to see that the endings match in case, gender, and number.

I want to trust that God is in (not of) the translating and the keeping of His word; I believe there is a reason why the A.V dominated and now the N.I.V does, because they are the translation of their time, even if they contradict one another..

Retranslation is used by ALL cults to justify their heresies (I know that's not what you're attempting here) so we should be cautious is all.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 9:47:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

Well, I don't see this changing any theological principles for starters, however it is quite interesting.

I looked at the New American Bible, and it said "in", so I dug up my physical Bible which I rarely use (RSV-2CE) and found it said "in" too.

Then I looked at the Douay-Rheims Bible, and it said "of".

Then I looked at the Nova Vulgata, which says "of".

So I'm not really sure what to think.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 10:02:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 9:47:05 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

Well, I don't see this changing any theological principles for starters, however it is quite interesting.

I looked at the New American Bible, and it said "in", so I dug up my physical Bible which I rarely use (RSV-2CE) and found it said "in" too.

Then I looked at the Douay-Rheims Bible, and it said "of".

Then I looked at the Nova Vulgata, which says "of".

So I'm not really sure what to think.

Who reads those translations?

Consider this:

In John 19:23-24 where the soldiers divide our Lords clothing, in the A.V it is His coat that they cast lots for.. But in the N.I.V it is His undergarment..

They cannot both be right..

The N.I.V makes more sense to me as our undergarment covers our shame, it is our righteousness.. And His was SEAMLESS!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 10:27:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 10:02:13 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Who reads those translations?

I do, for starters. The New American Bible is the only English Bible approved for Lectionary use in the United States, so I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.

RSV-2CE is probably not very popular.

Most traditional Catholics use the Douay-Rheims, and the Vatican's official Bible is the Nova Vulgata.

Consider this:

In John 19:23-24 where the soldiers divide our Lords clothing, in the A.V it is His coat that they cast lots for.. But in the N.I.V it is His undergarment..

They cannot both be right..

The N.I.V makes more sense to me as our undergarment covers our shame, it is our righteousness.. And His was SEAMLESS!

Well, just because it makes more sense to you doesn't make it right.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 11:32:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 10:02:13 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

Who reads those translations?

Consider this:

In John 19:23-24 where the soldiers divide our Lords clothing, in the A.V it is His coat that they cast lots for.. But in the N.I.V it is His undergarment..

They cannot both be right..

The N.I.V makes more sense to me as our undergarment covers our shame, it is our righteousness.. And His was SEAMLESS!

You may be right, but your reasoning is most likely incorrect.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 1:20:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 10:27:09 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/22/2012 10:02:13 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Who reads those translations?

I do, for starters. The New American Bible is the only English Bible approved for Lectionary use in the United States, so I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.

RSV-2CE is probably not very popular.

Most traditional Catholics use the Douay-Rheims, and the Vatican's official Bible is the Nova Vulgata.

Consider this:

In John 19:23-24 where the soldiers divide our Lords clothing, in the A.V it is His coat that they cast lots for.. But in the N.I.V it is His undergarment..

They cannot both be right..

The N.I.V makes more sense to me as our undergarment covers our shame, it is our righteousness.. And His was SEAMLESS!

Well, just because it makes more sense to you doesn't make it right.

When you state which one is true and why, then you'll be debating..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 1:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 11:32:20 AM, stubs wrote:
At 10/22/2012 10:02:13 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

Who reads those translations?

Consider this:

In John 19:23-24 where the soldiers divide our Lords clothing, in the A.V it is His coat that they cast lots for.. But in the N.I.V it is His undergarment..

They cannot both be right..

The N.I.V makes more sense to me as our undergarment covers our shame, it is our righteousness.. And His was SEAMLESS!

You may be right, but your reasoning is most likely incorrect.

When you state how, then you'll be debating..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 1:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks
Look at it in the reverse!!!
Believers are "IN Jesus Christ".. Believers have FAITH, all true believers are "IN Jesus"!
"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

If you are NOT "IN Jesus" then you do not have Faith!

The RIGHTEOUS are "IN Jesus" because they believe!

All who believe are RIGHTEOUS, these are "IN Jesus!"

faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
FAITH IN JESUS!!!
ALL BELIEVERS have FAITH IN Jesus!

stubs Your verse is implying believes and their FAITH are different things! faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe???????

Faith IN Jesus!!
Is different then
All who believe!!

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

FAITH & BELIEVE are not the same thing!!!!!!

stubs It could be written this way!
All "IN JESUS" are believer they are RIGHTEOUS!!

stubs It could be written this way!
"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ"!

WHY..
stubs Oh WHY is this added at the end... to all who believe.

Dogknox
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 1:47:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 1:20:42 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
When you state which one is true and why, then you'll be debating..

If I have to pick one, the NIV is closer to the actual Greek, which more or less means a tunic. A tunic is light, could be a form of undergarment, and is definitely not a coat.

However, I prefer the word 'tunic'.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 2:00:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 8:59:54 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

The problem with retranslation is that you're saying little ol' you knows more than all the theologians at the Chicago '66 formation of the NIV translation.. A translation used by the Gideons and one that has taken on and vanquished all comers..:

You support the New Age translations?
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 4:41:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/23/2012 2:00:00 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/22/2012 8:59:54 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/21/2012 10:02:26 PM, stubs wrote:
Part of Romans 3:22 reads

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (NIV)

The problem I have found with this translation is the fact that "Faith" and "Jesus Christ" are in the genitive form in Greek which is the possessive case. For example if I said, "That is stub's house." I could also say, "The house of Stubs." We find this same thing in Romans 3:22. In my opinion the translation should be, "Faith of Jesus Christ" so the whole thing would read, "This righteousness from God comes through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe."

I want to hear other peoples opinions as well as how you think this changes theological principles.

Thanks

The problem with retranslation is that you're saying little ol' you knows more than all the theologians at the Chicago '66 formation of the NIV translation.. A translation used by the Gideons and one that has taken on and vanquished all comers..:

You support the New Age translations?

A better one I heard recently was the 'Nearly Inspired Version'..

I have a small street Bible reading ministry and always read Johns gospel in the NIV translation, no one can deny it's eloquence and accessibility.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 7:09:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
KJV-R Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 9:09:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/24/2012 7:09:24 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
KJV-R Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Do you have anything to say about the issue? haha
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2012 10:04:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/24/2012 9:09:44 AM, stubs wrote:
At 10/24/2012 7:09:24 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
KJV-R Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Do you have anything to say about the issue? haha

Not really. I agree with you that it should be 'Of Christ'.