“Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.”—1 PETER 4:4.

A “LOW sink of debauchery.” That's how the apostle Peter describes the disgraceful situation in which many in the first century were before they became Christians. Other translations speak of it as the “swamp of profligacy” (The New American Bible); the “cesspool of dissipation” (The New Testament, by Kleist and Lilly). What was in this low sink of debauchery? The apostle mentions specifically loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries.—1 Peter 4:3, 4.

Truly a huge difference between this world and the true Christian congregation. Peter commended the Christians he was writing to for not continuing to run with their former worldly companions through this swamp, this cesspool, of badness. Similar commendation should be given to true Christians today, when conditions are even worse than they were in the first century. They are putting forth diligent effort to practice the clean and undefiled worship approved by our God and Father, which includes ‘keeping oneself without spot from the world.’ (James 1:27)

Heiress said:

I wonder if people reason on these things. Also, the words in the above post do not appear to be 333's. He's merely been copying and pasting like so many others who post info from the "anti-sites".

yxl1 said:

that's the real question, isn't it? what is the difference if it says "not of" or "no part of". the meaning is the same. christians are to remain separate from the world.

yxl1 said:

just a lot less interesting.

we can google and find this stuff ourselves.

i'd rather speak with an actual individual, truth be told.

NotDeaf said:

Ok so lets say there was no NWT? You can get the truth from any Bible as long as you have the greek to compare it with. I really like the scripture that say's (1CORINTH 14:9) IN THE SAME WAY ALSO, UNLESS YOU THROUGH THE TONGUE UTTER SPEECH EASILY UNDERSTOOD, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN? yOU WILL IN FACT BE SPEAKING INTO THE AIR. YES SINCE WE ARE IN THE YEAR 2004 WE HAVE TO USE WORDS THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND NOT YE AND THOU ETC. JUST BECAUSE WORDS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING.

yxl1 said:

True and correct in what way? Does grammar rules ACTUALLY provide the final say? Proper translation from one language to another means more than just knowing the rules of grammar. I deal with good and bad translating everyday. (from ASL to English and from English to ASL) In my experience, the person who is MOST accurate knows both the language AND the person well. Some people have expressions that they use, that if translated DIRECTLY BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR would be completely wrong. (Easiest example are idioms) Context Is Everything. The actress Marlee Matlin, has had the same interpreter / translator for YEARS. Why? He knows her, how she thinks, how she expresses herself, WHAT SHE MEANS. If her grammar isn't in the 3rd person subjective negative inclusion form, he still knows what she means.

Heiress makes the point of checking actions for understanding:

Heiress said:

The ACTIONS show the meaning. Even if the words used in THAT passage wern't the 2nd person indicative imperfect use of the genitive care.

.

Heiress said:

Google all you like. The fact is that my comments on Greek grammar are correct and are supported by Greek scholars.
[This message was edited Fri Jul 30 3:42:35 2004 by 333]

NotDeaf said:

they were command not to teach rather than not to preach. Not much of a difference I admit, but the text says teach.

Third, there are two verb in this sentence: (1) "dei" which is an impersonal verb used only in the 3rd person, often translated as "must, should or ought." It is present active indicative; (2) the verb translated "obey" is a present active infinitive in the Greek text. And by the way, there is no genitive case in the sentence.

Fourth, you can't know what the actions are unless you know what the verbs means. You can't find out the one without the other.

do you know greek fluently? ancient, modern? a friend of mine here who knows both tells me they're not all that different...

fantasyislander said:

I believe I explained the difference. The difference is one between relationship verse ownership. The Greek preposition plus the genitive case shows ownership. This is a possessive genitive and this is the most common usage of the genitive case. The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world." Therefore the idea that Christians have no part or relationship to the world and cannot or should not participate in matters concerning the world cannot be supported by this text. If John wanted to say that Christians are to have no dealings with the world then he would not have used this Greek construction. The thought is that Christians no longer belong to the world because Christ has paid their debt for sin, but these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world. Therefore the meaning of "not of" verse "no part of" are not even close.

by the way, 333...

do you have a PERSONAL opinion about the question i posted above?

here it is again:

why did Peter, when commanded to stop preaching, speak of obeying God as ruler rather than men, in the book of Acts?

did he misinterpret something? and he would have heard the words straight from the horse's mouth... his words & actions are certainly in line with being apart from the world...

acts 5:29 is the verse in question... the entire chapters 4 & 5 are interesting as background.

by the way 333, pt 2...

do you know greek fluently? ancient, modern? a friend of mine here who knows both tells me they're not all that different...

i'm thinking of studying it, once i have my english masters.

at the same time i do my second year of hebrew.

333 said:

ok, so it says they are "not of this world". they "do not belong to this world." even if that is the correct rendering it still fits in nicely with remaining separate from the world. and that is the example that Jesus, his apostles, his disciples, and all the first century christians set for us. so, tell me, did they get the meaning of this verse wrong as well?

fantasyislander said:

Not really. What I am trying to point out is that John 15:19 does not address the idea that Christians ought not involve themselves in matters of government, that they don't vote, that they don't join the military. Thus the verse should not be used as a proof text to try and prove something it does not even address.

out of the whole US Government how many of their son's or daughter's are in the military. I did research and it did not surprise me. Maybe 333 can tell us what that number is? I am curious to see if anyone knows. Just for fun research it, and get back to me.

Not really. What I am trying to point out is that John 15:19 does not address the idea that Christians ought not involve themselves in matters of government, that they don't vote, that they don't join the military. Thus the verse should not be used as a proof text to try and prove something it does not even address.

The NIV captures the thought when it translates the phrases: "If you belonged to the world" and "you do not belong to the world."

these verse do not in any way suggest that Christians do not have some part or relationship to the world, nor does it even hint at the idea that Christians are not participate in matters concerning the world.

zkp2003 said:

I don't know.

333 said:

The number is 1. I wonder why? Maybe it's because they would't have their family out there getting killed, but would rather have someone less important....like the innocent people who think they are doing their Country such good. To me it reminds me of a big chess game, only people are getting killed. It is a good thing that God holds the leaders more responsible for their actions then the people themselves. (The people who follow men that is) These poor men and woman for the most part are there(military) because they are poor and so they can be all that they can be! So the army commercial says. If it is such a good thing to be in the military...why do almost none of the government have their own in there, but they keep telling everyone else how great they are to fight for their Country.

333 said:

So, it's really the APPLICATION you have issue with, not the translation.

do you know greek fluently? ancient, modern? a friend of mine here who knows both tells me they're not all that different...

Heiress said:

I ckecked into the differences between the modern Greek text and the biblical Greek text. I have compared the two below. There are many notable differences as anyone can see. See these links for the modern Greek text (not the NWT):

http://www.htmlbible.com/...43C015.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/...ml#John.15

The task of transliteration is difficult and I have done my best to make it as clear as possible.

Modern Greek text: Ean [color=red:e454415ddd]e[/color]sthe ek tou kosmou, o kosmos [color=red:e454415ddd]e[/color]thelev agapa to idikon tou: epeid[color=red:e454415ddd]e[/color] om[color=orange:e454415ddd]o[/color]s den eisthe ek tou kosmou...

Biblical Greek text: Ei ek tou kosmou [color=red:e454415ddd]e[/color]te, o kosmos an to idion ephilei: oti de ek tou kosmou ouk este...

epsilon = black (short "e" sound as in get)
eta = [color=red:e454415ddd]red[/color] (long "e" sound as in late)
omicron = black (short "o" as in obey)
omega = [color=orange:e454415ddd]orange[/color] (long "o" as in note)
Note that omega and omicron make the same sound but are written differently, but the omicron is a short "o" while omega is a long "o".

Thanks to Heiress and NotDeaf for the idea for looking at the modern Greek text. It has proven very helpful and very insightful.

One last note. As far as NWT is concerned, I don't know if the NWT is a translation of the English text into modern Greek or a translations of the biblical Greek text into modern Greek. I would really love to see a NWT modern Greek translation so that I could see. After looking at the other modern Greek translations I would bet that the modern Greek NWT is from the English version and not the biblical Greek text.
[This message was edited Sat Jul 31 14:20:07 2004 by 333]

The task of transliteration is difficult and I have done my best to make it as clear as possible.

Thanks to Heiress and NotDeaf for the idea for looking at the modern Greek text. It has proven very helpful and very insightful.

I would really love to see a NWT modern Greek translation so that I could see.

333 said:

333 are you a pastor or priest or something? Just curious.

I ckecked into the differences between the modern Greek text and the biblical Greek text. I have compared the two below. There are many notable differences as anyone can see. See these links for the modern Greek text (not the NWT):

http://www.htmlbible.com/...43C015.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/...ml#John.15

The task of transliteration is difficult and I have done my best to make it as clear as possible.

Modern Greek text: Ean esthe ek tou kosmou, o kosmos ethelev agapa to idikon tou: epeide omos den eisthe ek tou kosmou...

Biblical Greek text: Ei ek tou kosmou ete, o kosmos an to idion ephilei: oti de ek tou kosmou ouk este...

epsilon = black (short "e" sound as in get)
eta = red (long "e" sound as in late)
omicron = black (short "o" as in obey)
omega = orange (long "o" as in note)
Note that omega and omicron make the same sound but are written differently, but the omicron is a short "o" while omega is a long "o".

Thanks to Heiress and NotDeaf for the idea for looking at the modern Greek text. It has proven very helpful and very insightful.

One last note. As far as NWT is concerned, I don't know if the NWT is a translation of the English text into modern Greek or a translations of the biblical Greek text into modern Greek. I would really love to see a NWT modern Greek translation so that I could see. After looking at the modern Greek translation I would bet that the modern Greek NWT is from the English version and not the biblical Greek text.

333 said:

The effort is appreciated



And what insights did you get?


Just go to a Kingdom Hall and ask for one. They may have to order it, unless you live in a Greek speaking area, but it has been available since 1997.


Finally, any response to my prior post regarding: "The English word used in the NIV CAN support the idea of not sharing in the responsibilities, duties, and obligations of the world. 'To not belong' can mean to NOT owe allegiance or service."? Does this now mean you disagree with the NIV word choice as well?

333
(4) Word for word, the MGV literally reads: "The world would have loved the one's own the one's of."

zkp2003 said:

No sir I am not a pastor or a priest.