Author Topic: Born OF and not IN? ... A translation error or was the original Greek corrected?  (Read 6634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE

John 3:

” 3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

And again

5. Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus said it twice to Nicodemus.....

Seems pretty straight forward doesn't it... or does it.

Question.....  From 'my' 21centurty common logic ...if Jesus had meant Nicodemus to be immersed in his own baptism

would he not have said ?

 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born in water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So what does BORN OF really mean?

The bible is conspiculously absent of explanation of these 2 simple words... but there is a fair amount of info from all walks of assorted faiths, explaining the myriad of ideas.

Among those are this explanation , and all of you who are super interpreters of ancient languages can pick the first part of this apart and tell us why it is wrong...

https://www.gracegospelpress.org/bible-questions-answered-what-does-born-of-water-and-the-spirit-mean-in-john-35/

Quote
“Born Again of Water”?

Before examining the context, the first step in correctly interpreting this passage is to observe the actual words of the text.
Notice that the Lord does not say to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Early in church history when the Greek New Testament was being translated into Latin, the Latin word renatus (“born again”) was incorrectly used to translate the Greek word gennēthē (“born”) in John 3:5, rather than the correct Latin word natus (“born”).  ( from the interlinear gennēthē)
                                                                                               γεννηθῇ
                                                                                                be born

The incorrect reading of renatus soon prevailed among the majority of Latin manuscripts, so that it became the standard reading of the Latin Vulgate. A textual basis for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration quickly became ensconced in western Christendom. To this day, even many Protestants are adversely affected by the ancient Latin textual error, often wrongly assuming that Jesus in verse 5 speaks of two requirements for being “born again” (water + Spirit), rather than two ways of simply being “born” (physical + spiritual).

(side note:... My English/Greek interlinear bible translates the Greek to English as

John 3:3 Answered Jesus and said to him Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born from above not he is able to see the kingdom - of God

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

Then it continues with... to me...  the most explanatory statement from the Greeks

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

MY COMMENT : BORN OF THE FLESH IS BORN OF WATER... IMMERSION IS NOT BORN OF THE FLESH

John 3:7 Not do wonder that I said to you It is necessary that you[all] to be born from above

John 3:8 The wind where it wishes blows and the sound of it You hear but not you know from where it comes and where it goes thus is everyone - having been born of the Spirit

John 3:14 and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness thus to be lifted up it behooves the Son - of Man

John 3:15 so that everyone - believing in Him may have life eternal

What did Jesus mean in John 3:5 when He said to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God”? The meaning of the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” has been debated throughout church history, resulting in four main interpretations. The first of these views is doctrinally false and contradicts the rest of Scripture. The other three views are all doctrinally acceptable, but the last view best explains the exegetical evidence.

View #1: The Roman Catholic and majority interpretation within Christendom contradicts biblical teaching on salvation by grace apart from works. It concludes that “born of water and the Spirit” refers to the rite or sacrament of water baptism which supposedly bestows regeneration.

View #2: The majority view among Protestant Reformed Christians interprets “water” as a figure of speech for the Holy Spirit, with Jesus saying essentially, “born of water, even the Spirit.”

View #3: A minority view among Protestants also interprets “water” figuratively, not as a reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the Word of God and its cleansing effect, similar to Ephesians 5:26, “the washing of water by the Word.”

View #4: A prominent view among evangelicals is that “water” refers to literal water—the amniotic fluid of a mother’s womb that breaks in childbirth, so that “water” refers to a physical, womb birth, while “Spirit” refers to one’s rebirth or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, “born of water and Spirit” refers to two kinds of birth (a womb birth + a Holy Spirit birth) rather than two means to be born again (such as water baptism + the Holy Spirit). In John 3:5, Jesus not only answers Nicodemus’s question and misunderstanding from verse 4 about reentering his mother’s womb and being born physically a second time, but He clarifies for Nicodemus that physical birth alone is not enough to qualify a person for entrance into God’s kingdom—a person must also receive a second birth to be spiritually reborn from above. This interpretation is faithful to the details of the inspired text of John 3 and harmonizes with the truth found elsewhere in Scripture that salvation is solely God’s work for man, received by His grace alone, apart from human merit, on the condition of faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Last: from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41480/why-is-it-that-in-john-33-the-esv-translates-be-born-from-above-to-is-born-a
Quote
I was told that ESV uses the oldest Greek manuscripts to translate the scripture literally from Greek into English.

So why is it that in John 3:3 the ESV translates "be born from above" to "is born again" in John 3:3?

Is it "born again" in the oldest manuscripts?

If we check the interlinear bible { John 3:3 interlinear } and the Greek we never find Jesus using the words "born again".

John 3:3 interlinear


Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
I always looked at it as when we come out of the water of baptism, we are born or rise out of the water a new creature, leaving behind the old man. A new birth in a real sense. Also, with the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism in Christ's name, we are born of the Spirit or products of the Spirit. Therefore, we must be born of water and the Spirit. Involving forgiveness of sin and the indwelling gift of the Spirit. John's baptism lacked the gift of the Holy Spirit and was only a baptism of repentance for remission of sin. Which is why John made the statement that one comes after him that baptizes with the Spirit or conveys the indwelling gift of the Spirit.

I haven't looked into any translation error.

I was born OF a woman, but I was IN a woman prior to birth.  ::lookaround::
 
« Last Edit: Wed Oct 05, 2022 - 16:30:39 by Jaime »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
John 3:5 isn't about Christian baptism. I lean towards view #2

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
I always looked at it as when we come out of the water of baptism, we are born or rise out of the water a new creature, leaving behind the old man. A new birth in a real sense. Also, with the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism in Christ's name, we are born of the Spirit or products of the Spirit. Therefore, we must be born of water and the Spirit. Involving forgiveness of sin and the indwelling gift of the Spirit. John's baptism lacked the gift of the Holy Spirit and was only a baptism of repentance for remission of sin. Which is why John made the statement that one comes after him that baptizes with the Spirit or conveys the indwelling gift of the Spirit.

I haven't looked into any translation error.

I was born OF a woman, but I was IN a woman prior to birth.  ::lookaround::

Seems reasonable but the concept of John 3:5 from the interlinear translation of “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Does not square with John 3: 6 from same translation. That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

If you are coming up out of water from the baptism end  where does born of the flesh fit?

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
We are already born of flesh. Flesh is flesh and Spirit is Spirit. No need to re-enter the womb as Nick suggested. Born of water is not used anywhere else in the bible to refer to the birth process. And Jesus would not have indicated that being physically born was a pre-requisite. No need for such an obvious redundancy. Besides, what later involves water and spirit, and  becoming a new creature concerning the kingdom and salvation? Hmmmm, could it be? Surely not the B-word.  ::eek::
« Last Edit: Wed Oct 05, 2022 - 19:28:08 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
We are already born of flesh. Flesh is flesh and Spirit is Spirit. No need to re-enter the womb as Nick suggested. Born of water is not used anywhere else in the bible to refer to the birth process. And Jesus would not have indicated that being physically born was a pre-requisite. No need for such an obvious redundancy. Besides, what later involves water and spirit, and  becoming a new creature concerning the kingdom and salvation? Hmmmm, could it be? Surely not the B-word.  ::eek::

Key word:. Later.  Not John 3:5.  Water doesn't mean baptism in John 4 with the woman at the well either.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14851
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
"Again" may not be a very good word-for-word translation of the Greek word used there (ἄνωθεν), but look at the context:

John 3:4   Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Nicodemus certainly understood that he was talking about a second birth.  So that seems like a reasonable translation to me.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
That is why JESUS said flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit. It’s a big stretch in my mind to then make the leap that water refers to fleshly birth. Not to mention it would be pretty redundant to use a second reference to fleshly birth that has never been used before in scripture.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
TC, I of course agree with your statement about the woman at the well. Jesus’s statement to Nick was to me referring to something that would soon be involving water and spirit as to the Kingdom of God. John’s baptism existed then sans the Spirit. Why would it be unusual to refer to a baptism INVOLVING the Spirit and becoming a new creature. I’m sure Jesus knew Nick wasn’t ready to actually do what Jesus cryptically referred to.
« Last Edit: Wed Oct 05, 2022 - 19:56:12 by Jaime »

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14851
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
It’s a big stretch in my mind to then make the leap that water refers to fleshly birth.
Why?  Water is strongly associated with birth both in nature and throughout the Bible.  A baby is born when the mother's "water breaks."  In Genesis 1, everything is created from "waters." 

Indeed, the reason that baptism is an adoption is that it pictures the adoptee being born anew by coming out of water.

Jarrod

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Absolutely, baptism involves a new birth. That is the link it seems to me in John 3. Jesus would not logically make being born naturally a pre-requisite for entering the Kingdom along with being born of the Spirit.

Would the indwelling gift of the Spirit given at baptism in Christ’s name where one becomes a new creature not qualify as being born of water and Spirit as it relates to the Kingdom?

I don’t see baptism in every symbolic reference in the Bible, but here in John 3 it fits way too well to be ignored in my opinion.
« Last Edit: Thu Oct 06, 2022 - 04:05:42 by Jaime »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
I can go along with one of the possibilities that this link talks about:

https://www.gty.org/library/bibleqnas-library/QA0302/what-does-it-mean-to-be-born-of-water-and-spirit

Quote
Since Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand this truth (v. 10), it must have been something with which he was familiar. Water and Spirit often refer symbolically in the Old Testament to spiritual renewal and cleansing (cf. Num. 19:17–19; Isa. 4:4; 32:15; 44:3; 55:1; Joel 2:28–29; Zech. 13:1). In one of the most glorious passages in all of Scripture describing Israel’s restoration to the Lord by the new covenant, God said through Ezekiel,

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek. 36:24–27)

It was surely this passage that Jesus had in mind, showing regeneration to be an Old Testament truth (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 11:18–20) with which Nicodemus would have been acquainted. Against this Old Testament backdrop, Christ’s point was unmistakable: Without the spiritual washing of the soul, a cleansing accomplished only by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) through the Word of God (Eph. 5:26), no one can enter God’s kingdom.

« Last Edit: Thu Oct 06, 2022 - 05:22:41 by Jaime »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
That is why JESUS said flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit. It’s a big stretch in my mind to then make the leap that water refers to fleshly birth. Not to mention it would be pretty redundant to use a second reference to fleshly birth that has never been used before in scripture.

Sigh... My reply disappeared again. ::tearhair::

John 3: 5 and 6 tie the mention of Jesus saying OF Water to the physical birth of flesh together.

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

He goes on to indicate he is talking about the Holy Spirit in

John 3:7 Not do wonder that I said to you It is necessary that you[all] to be born from above

John 3:8 The wind where it wishes blows and the sound of it You hear but not you know from where it comes and where it goes thus is everyone - having been born of the Spirit

However.... Let's assume you are right and He is talking about being born again of water.... (or by water)...

You have opened the door to sprinkling because none of you here would say that you had been born again of water... you would say you were born again in water... be it a baptimal pool or a river... or a swimming pool.

So if Jesus was telling Nick he needed to be born again of water...  ::hiding:: that sure says a sprinkling ::eek:: would do. ::tippinghat::

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Absolutely, baptism involves a new birth. That is the link it seems to me in John 3. Jesus would not logically make being born naturally a pre-requisite for entering the Kingdom along with being born of the Spirit.

Would the indwelling gift of the Spirit given at baptism in Christ’s name where one becomes a new creature not qualify as being born of water and Spirit as it relates to the Kingdom?

I don’t see baptism in every symbolic reference in the Bible, but here in John 3 it fits way too well to be ignored in my opinion.

I don't see baptism to fit at all in John 3:5.

I think the following rules that view out:

9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Why should have Nicodemus understood a future baptism is what was mentioned in John 3:5?

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong

Sigh... My reply disappeared again. ::tearhair::

John 3: 5 and 6 tie the mention of Jesus saying OF Water to the physical birth of flesh together.

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

He goes on to indicate he is talking about the Holy Spirit in

John 3:7 Not do wonder that I said to you It is necessary that you[all] to be born from above

John 3:8 The wind where it wishes blows and the sound of it You hear but not you know from where it comes and where it goes thus is everyone - having been born of the Spirit

However.... Let's assume you are right and He is talking about being born again of water.... (or by water)...

You have opened the door to sprinkling because none of you here would say that you had been born again of water... you would say you were born again in water... be it a baptimal pool or a river... or a swimming pool.

So if Jesus was telling Nick he needed to be born again of water...  ::hiding:: that sure says a sprinkling ::eek:: would do. ::tippinghat::

I don't believe John 3:5 is mentioning physical birth or water baptism.  So the sprinkling thing is not applicable.

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40133
  • Manna: 804
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Actually TC I like the explanation that Nick would have understood what Jesus was talking about because of what Nick surely knew about the OT. (See my reply before this one). And it might not have been a cryptic reference to amniotic fluid OR of baptism. I think the amniotic fluid argument is least likely.
« Last Edit: Thu Oct 06, 2022 - 08:12:18 by Jaime »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Why should have Nicodemus understood a future baptism is what was mentioned in John 3:5?
Nicodemus would certainly have been aware, if not keenly aware, of the work of John the Baptist, and the work of Jesus' and his disciples in baptizing. All Israel knew that John baptized in water (see John 1:26-31). Nicodemus could not have helped but connect Jesus’ words with John’s work.

Jesus’ own baptism by John, which must have been widely reported in that day and which is recorded for our reading, involved a conjunction of water baptism and the descent of the Spirit. See Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-33. Thus a reference to “water and Spirit” would not unnaturally cause us to think of baptism.

John the Baptist’s teaching contained a strong emphasis on the distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism. See Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16; John 1:33. This is capsulized in Mark 1:8, “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Thus again, when “water and Spirit” are mentioned together in John 3:5, we would quite naturally think of baptism. Another aspect of John’s teaching was the relation between his water baptism and the coming kingdom (Matt. 3:2). Thus in John 3:5, when Jesus relates water and the kingdom, it again brings baptism to mind.

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Another aspect of John’s teaching was the relation between his water baptism and the coming kingdom (Matt. 3:2). Thus in John 3:5, when Jesus relates water and the kingdom, it again brings baptism to mind.

From the Greek interlinear...

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

These were the response Jesus had when Nick questioned about how he could enter again into his mother's womb.

Jesus did not clarify what he meant further... he focused on Holy Spirit comments.

What is your explanation of flesh in verse 6?

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17574
  • Manna: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
To the OP:

The original conversation was not in either Latin or Greek.  It was in Hebrew/Aramaic.

From the George Lamsa translation of the earliest Aramaic texts:

3.5 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly truly I say to you, If a man is not born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  6  What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is spirit.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
To the OP:

The original conversation was not in either Latin or Greek.  It was in Hebrew/Aramaic.

From the George Lamsa translation of the earliest Aramaic texts:

3.5 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly truly I say to you, If a man is not born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  6  What is born of flesh is flesh, and what is born of Spirit is spirit.

It really doesn't matter if the original conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic; it matters only what language the gospel of John was originally written in.  Are you suggesting that John was not originally written in Greek?

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17574
  • Manna: 201
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
It really doesn't matter if the original conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic; it matters only what language the gospel of John was originally written in.  Are you suggesting that John was not originally written in Greek?
I think there is a good possibility that it was originally in Aramaic.   

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
What is your explanation of flesh in verse 6?
Rella 'flesh" is a spiritual term describing depraved humanity (Genesis 5:3; Job 14:14; Psalms 51:5; 58:3; John 1:13; Romans 8:7; Ist Peter 3:21; 2nd Corinthians 7:1)~which according to the word of God is sinful, at enmity against God! Romans 8

I'll answer your question since others did not.

I got some catching up to do. I'll post more as I can.

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Quote
Born OF and not IN? ... A translation error or was the original Greek corrected?
No translation error and I really do not know what the original said and it does not really matter~I trust in God preserving His word for us and have 100% confidence He did. Psalms 12.
Quote from:  Rella on: Yesterday at 16:07:14
So what does BORN OF really mean?
Let us see from the scriptures.
Quote
John 3:4,5~"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
It should be very simple to follow this discourse between our Lord and Nicodemus, yet false gospel and those who peddle such have made it almost impossible to follow this very brief discourse.

"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born"~Nicodemus asked a seemly ridiculous question for such a man of this standing in Israel, almost a childish question that we would expect from children.

Based on his question, Jesus said the following: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water"~Nicodemus in his ignorance of the biblical teaching of being born of the Spirit, which he should have known, for Paul knew proven by Galatians 4~please read:
Quote from: Paul
Galatians 4:22-31~"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
Niodemus should have known of the truth behind Isaac's birth, which Christ upbraided him for NOT KNOWING being in the place of being a teacher in Israel!

I just got a call and must come back later to finish. But, here's a start to consider.
« Last Edit: Thu Oct 06, 2022 - 15:37:43 by RB »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
I think there is a good possibility that it was originally in Aramaic.
I have five commentaries on the Gospel of John plus a couple of books on the introduction to the NT.  Not a one of them would support what you think.  Of the entire NT, I know of only one book that might have a passage or two that was originally in Aramaic, and that is the Gospel of Matthew.  And even that is contested. There is not any of the earliest manuscripts of the NT that are in any language other than Koine Greek.

Even the LXX had been in existence for a couple hundred years by the time any of the NT was authored.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Niodemus should have known of the truth behind Isaac's birth, which Christ asked upbraided him for NOT KNOWING being in the place of being a teacher in Israel!
And you should have known that the phrase "that was born" in Galatians 4:29 is in italics and was inserted into the text by the translators of the KHV.  There, as in other translations, it is not a reference to being born again as John 3; rather, it is a reference the "children of promise" in verse 28. 

(ASV)  But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.

(ESV)  But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

(NASB)  But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.


It is a statement of the physical birth of Isaac whose physical conception and birth was according to the direct action of the Holy Spirit upon the fertility of his parents, Abraham and Sarah; not so the birth of Ishmael who was born of Abraham and Hagar.

We as Christians, children of faith, are also the receivers of many promises that simply are not available to non-believers. The promises were to Isaac; no such promises were to Ishmael.

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
It is a statement of the physical birth of Isaac whose physical conception and birth was according to the direct action of the Holy Spirit upon the fertility of his parents,
Exactly! Isaac's birth was a PERFECT allegory of how every child of promise is born AGAIN. It is by the Spirit of God, according to God's promises of his oath and grace to the seed of Jesus Christ. Nicodemus should have known this being in the position of teaching Israel.

4WD, you totally missed it when you said:
Quote from:  4WD on: Today at 07:57:49
Nicodemus would certainly have been aware, if not keenly aware, of the work of John the Baptist, and the work of Jesus' and his disciples in baptizing. All Israel knew that John baptized in water (see John 1:26-31). Nicodemus could not have helped but connect Jesus’ words with John’s work.

Jesus’ own baptism by John, which must have been widely reported in that day and which is recorded for our reading, involved a conjunction of water baptism and the descent of the Spirit. See Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-33. Thus a reference to “water and Spirit” would not unnaturally cause us to think of baptism.
Brother, that's not why Jesus upbraided him for NOT KNOWING, about being born again BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. It was such scriptures as Paul used concerning Isaac, and other scripture in the OT, that we can show later if needed. Water baptism is not being born again and certainly is nowhere found in the OT, not even hinted.
Quote from: 4WD on: Today at 15:15:11
We as Christians, children of faith, are also the receivers of many promises that simply are not available to non-believers. The promises were to Isaac; no such promises were to Ishmael.
Agreed.
« Last Edit: Thu Oct 06, 2022 - 15:54:38 by RB »

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11007
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
View #4: A prominent view among evangelicals is that “water” refers to literal water—the amniotic fluid of a mother’s womb that breaks in childbirth, so that “water” refers to a physical, womb birth, while “Spirit” refers to one’s rebirth or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, “born of water and Spirit” refers to two kinds of birth (a womb birth + a Holy Spirit birth) rather than two means to be born again (such as water baptism + the Holy Spirit). In John 3:5, Jesus not only answers Nicodemus’s question and misunderstanding from verse 4 about reentering his mother’s womb and being born physically a second time, but He clarifies for Nicodemus that physical birth alone is not enough to qualify a person for entrance into God’s kingdom—a person must also receive a second birth to be spiritually reborn from above. This interpretation is faithful to the details of the inspired text of John 3 and harmonizes with the truth found elsewhere in Scripture that salvation is solely God’s work for man,................................

This is the correct view overall consider, a few minor points of disagreement. ~I'll come back in the morning, the Lord willing, and consider this point.
« Last Edit: Thu Oct 06, 2022 - 16:02:05 by RB »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
I think there is a good possibility that it was originally in Aramaic.

We know Jesus spoke in Aramaic often.....

But it does not matter because from what you posted

Aramaic

3.5 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly truly I say to you, If a man is not born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. 

Greek interlinear

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into the kingdom - of  God

To me these say the same thing... What say you?

If a man is not born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

For sure it is not King Jimmy's translation.


Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Rella 'flesh" is a spiritual term describing depraved humanity (Genesis 5:3; Job 14:14; Psalms 51:5; 58:3; John 1:13; Romans 8:7; Ist Peter 3:21; 2nd Corinthians 7:1)~which according to the word of God is sinful, at enmity against God! Romans 8

I'll answer your question since others did not.

I got some catching up to do. I'll post more as I can.

You are making my point.

Jesus said... and you can do the Greek or Aramaic... IDC... though I have the Greek on my laptop.

John 3:5 Answered - Jesus Truly truly I say to you if not anyone be born of water and of [the]Spirit not he is able to enter into
the kingdom of God

And then He went immediately to

John 3:6  That having been born of the flesh flesh is and that having been born of the Spirit spirit is

and the continuation certainly says that your rotten flesh ( though it is not stated as such) cannot inherit the kingdom of God... unless the one with the rotten flesh has been born of the spirit.

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12257
  • Manna: 671
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
I have five commentaries on the Gospel of John plus a couple of books on the introduction to the NT.  Not a one of them would support what you think.  Of the entire NT, I know of only one book that might have a passage or two that was originally in Aramaic, and that is the Gospel of Matthew.  And even that is contested. There is not any of the earliest manuscripts of the NT that are in any language other than Koine Greek.

Even the LXX had been in existence for a couple hundred years by the time any of the NT was authored.

It does not matter. They support the same thing. And that before the translators got their hands on things.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Exactly! Isaac's birth was a PERFECT allegory of how every child of promise is born AGAIN. It is by the Spirit of God, according to God's promises of his oath and grace to the seed of Jesus Christ. Nicodemus should have known this being in the position of teaching Israel.
You have got to be kidding.  That was not Isaac being born again.  That was Isaac being born the first time -- PHYSICALLY.

I seriously doubt that you were conceived in a woman by a man, both beyond their years of fertility through the direct intercession of God.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Why?  Water is strongly associated with birth both in nature and throughout the Bible.  A baby is born when the mother's "water breaks."
A euphemism born of water for physical birth is never used anywhere else in the bible.  It was not a euphemism then; it is not a euphemism now. It is simply a construct by those who refuse to accept the connection of the water of John3 for the water of baptism, which it most naturally is.

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13969
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
It does not matter. They support the same thing. And that before the translators got their hands on things.
They support what same thing, Rella?

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Journalist!, SuperFree, Senator of GCM, Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable. The Man, The Myth, The Legend
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13821
  • Manna: 418
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
A euphemism born of water for physical birth is never used anywhere else in the bible.  It was not a euphemism then; it is not a euphemism now. It is simply a construct by those who refuse to accept the connection of the water of John3 for the water of baptism, which it most naturally is.

No, it isn't baptism.  Got to read backwards for that one.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14851
  • Manna: 372
  • Gender: Male
It really doesn't matter if the original conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic; it matters only what language the gospel of John was originally written in.  Are you suggesting that John was not originally written in Greek?
It very much matters that the original conversation was in Aramaic.  That's where the original meaning and intent exist.

The gospel of John may have been written first in Greek, but to get to the correct meaning, it is necessary to extrapolate what was actually said, which was not in Greek.