The Sabbath is more than just a day of rest; it is the sign of God's covenant and His seal of authority over His people

[SabbathBlessings]

It is not matter of belief. Just research the issue and get the info. Refusing to learn is not faith, it is fanaticism/bias.

The OT was already written when the NT was happening, Not once does it say the Scriptures were edited, why Jesus and the apostles quoted from it verbatim. You do not know what I have studied so best to stick to what you believe and why and leave it like that.


Like I said a thousand times, I am ok agreeing to disagree. All gets sorted out soon enough.

 

[trophy33]

The OT was already written hen the NT was happening, Not once does it say the Scriptures were edited, why Jesus and the apostles quoted from it verbatim. You do not know what I have studied so best to stick to what you believe and why and not try to claim you know what others do or don't do, Its actually a rule of the forums.

There were several textual lines of the OT in the time of the NT, that is why their quotations are not consistent with your modern version of the OT, frequently. Do not be afraid and just check it. I will give you an example:

As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
R 9:33

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.
Is 28:16

And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope.
R 15:12

In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.
Is 11:10

Do you want to know why it is so different?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

There were several textual lines of the OT in the time of the NT, that is why their quotations are not consistent with your modern version of the OT, frequently. Do not be afraid and just check it. I will give you an example:

As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
R 9:33

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.
Is 28:16

And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope.
R 15:12

In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.
Is 11:10

Do you want to know why it is so different?

Is the message different or that way it is being said different? Its not a different message, God allows free will, so the way I am going to say something might be a little different than someone else from my church, but the message is the same. Why there are 4 gospel, all working in harmony but stated slightly different.

God's Word will never fail, it is settled in heaven

Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. Psa 119:89

Be well.

 

[trophy33]

Is the message different or that way it is being said different?

Yes, the message is different. For example:

in him the Gentiles will hope.
is not:
his resting place will be glorious.

Do you want to know why there are such differences and inconsistencies in your Bible?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, preach the gospel, not change God's personal Testimony that God said He would not change or reverse what God deems an abomination. Its not the writings of Paul I take issue with its how people twist them to contradict Jesus Christ. Jesus tells us what is going to happen at His Second Coming, best to work backwards from there, not try to change the outcome Jesus already told us a head of time because He loves us and wants us to make better decisions and no one can say, I didn't know. Jesus is the authority Mat 28:18, Jesus is who we are to follow 1 John 2:6 1 Peter 2:21-22 Paul called himself a servant of Christ, and a servant is not greater than their master John 13:16. So what did Jesus teach and follow, that is our example and even the apostles said we ought to obey God over man.

Who was it that revealed that circumcision was no longer necessary? Who was it that revealed that sin offerings were no longer necessary? WHO was it that revealed that the New Moon feasts were no longer necessary? WAS IT JESUS WHO REVEALED THESE THINGS? No it was Paul and the apostles who revealed these truths. Were they undermining Christ by doing so? You act as though the apostles had no authority to change God’s laws when in fact they were prophets revealing what God Himself wanted them to reveal.

You claim that I’m twisting Paul’s words but you declined to give any alternative explanation whatsoever for the passages I presented. Instead you quoted 2 Peter 3:15-16 as an excuse to just ignore those passages of scripture. So you’re whole argument can be summed up by just simply saying “nuh uh” because you’ve given no explanation at all as to what alternative message those passages were referring to.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Brother, here is an example of how Paul is misunderstood in his use of the word "Spirit" in replacing the law with the "Spirit". Paul is not referring to the Holy Spirit, as the translators forced contrary to context, but to Jesus as our role model of obedience to what is written in stone, as superior in showing us how to obey the Ten Commandments than having only what was written in stone. Paul tells us that his use of the word "Spirit" refers to Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, in the context of his message about replacing the law with the "Spirit".

We are confident of all this because of our great trust in God through Christ (as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). It is not that we think we are qualified to do anything on our own (like excusing our disobedience of the Ten Commandments as coming from the Holy Spirit). Our qualification comes from God (sending us Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). This is a covenant not of the letter (Ten Commandments), but of the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror and not the Holy Spirit used as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments when Jesus obeyed them). The letter ends in death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin); but the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror) gives life (the removal of Judaism's disobedience to obey completely the Ten Commandments). The old way (God's "order" by the prophet Moses), with letters etched in stone (Ten Commandments), led to death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin), though it began with such glory (leading to righteousness) that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God (which is His righteousness expressed in the Ten Commandments), even though the brightness was already fading away (Judaism's disobedience to the Ten Commandments). Shouldn’t we expect far greater glory under the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror who obeyed completely the Ten Commandments for us to do likewise), now that the Holy (added by the translators) Spirit (not the Holy Spirit but Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror) gives life? If the old way (written letters etched in stone), which brings condemnation (Judaism disobeys the Ten Commandments by replacing them with human traditions), was glorious (leading to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror), which makes us right with God (removes sin)! In fact, that first glory (which led to righteousness) was not glorious at all compared with the overwhelming glory (leading to righteousness) of the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). So if the old way (written letters etched in stone), which has been replaced, was glorious (led to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror), which remains forever! Since this new way (of imaging as in a mirror the model "Spirit" of Jesus, rather than Judaism's disobedience) gives us such confidence, we can be very bold (learning to use God's name properly, which Judaism does not). We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory (of God's righteousness), even though it was destined to fade away (by Judaism's growing disobedience to the Ten Commandments). But the people’s minds were hardened (to disobey the Ten Commandments), and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth (of their disobedience by replacing God's Commandments with their own human traditions). And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ (as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand (they disobey the Ten Commandments by substituting them with human traditions). But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror who obeyed the Ten Commandments as our example and Paul is not referring to the Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments), and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (from sin and not from God's Ten Commandments). So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord (in obeying completely the Ten Commandments by removing Judaism's disobedience). And the Lord—who is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" Paul is telling us to image as in a mirror and not the Holy Spirit, whose job is to tell us things through prophets and remind us of Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror)—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image. (2 Corinthians 3:4-18 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

I disagree because it was thru the Holy Spirit that the apostles reached their verdict concerning circumcision in Acts 15 which is a polar opposite of Christ’s example who was circumcised according to God’s commandment. If Jesus is our example to follow then we would have to keep the entire Mosaic law like He did. This revelation was something that was not revealed until AFTER Christ’s ascension. Just like the observance of the new moon feasts and sin offerings. Nothing was revealed by Christ during His ministry that these things would pass away, it wasn’t revealed until after His ascension that these things had passed away just like the dietary laws and the sabbath days. So this idea that we are supposed to observe the laws that Christ observed is inconsistent. It’s used by sabbatarians to support the idea that we must observe the sabbath but not the rest of the laws that Christ kept, hence the inconsistency in that argument. Either you keep the laws that Christ kept or you don’t, picking and choosing which ones you want to observe and which ones you don’t only results in hypocrisy by pretending that you follow His example when in reality you really don’t.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As I already told you, basically the whole Old Testament was being edited for centuries before it got some more stable form. But this does not seem to bother you.

What is, therefore, your measurement of what of the current form you want to remove?

It wasn’t being edited, it was being added to.

 

[trophy33]

It wasn’t being edited, it was being added to.

Explain significantly different textual families, then.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Explain significantly different textual families, then.

Define “families”. A “family” can be any category or genre you want.

 

[guevaraj]

this idea that we are supposed to observe the laws that Christ observed is inconsistent. It’s used by sabbatarians to support the idea that we must observe the sabbath but not the rest of the laws that Christ kept, hence the inconsistency in that argument. Either you keep the laws that Christ kept or you don’t, picking and choosing which ones you want to observe and which ones you don’t only results in hypocrisy by pretending that you follow His example when in reality you really don’t.

Brother, Paul is replacing what was "etched in stone" with the "Spirit" and is not referring to other laws not "etched in stone" as you have expanded the scope of his message. You are giving Paul's message greater scope than the context of his message about specifically what was "etched in stone", the Ten Commandments. Notice that I removed the word law that was added by the translators when there is no mention of law in the original message but of the "letters etched in stone".

The old way, with laws/letters etched in stone, led to death, though it began with such glory that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God, even though the brightness was already fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:7 NLT fixed)​

The original is not speaking about laws in general but about the "letters etched in stone", the Ten Commandments.

We are confident of all this because of our great trust in God through Christ (as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). It is not that we think we are qualified to do anything on our own (like excusing our disobedience of the Ten Commandments as coming from the Holy Spirit). Our qualification comes from God (sending us Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). This is a covenant not of the letter (Ten Commandments), but of the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror and not the Holy Spirit used as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments when Jesus obeyed them). The letter ends in death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin); but the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror) gives life (the removal of Judaism's disobedience to obey completely the Ten Commandments). The old way (God's "order" by the prophet Moses), with letters etched in stone (Ten Commandments), led to death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin), though it began with such glory (leading to righteousness) that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God (which is His righteousness expressed in the Ten Commandments), even though the brightness was already fading away (Judaism's disobedience to the Ten Commandments). Shouldn’t we expect far greater glory under the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror who obeyed completely the Ten Commandments for us to do likewise), now that the Holy (added by the translators) Spirit (not the Holy Spirit but Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror) gives life? If the old way (written letters etched in stone), which brings condemnation (Judaism disobeys the Ten Commandments by replacing them with human traditions), was glorious (leading to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror), which makes us right with God (removes sin)! In fact, that first glory (which led to righteousness) was not glorious at all compared with the overwhelming glory (leading to righteousness) of the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). So if the old way (written letters etched in stone), which has been replaced, was glorious (led to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror), which remains forever! Since this new way (of imaging as in a mirror the model "Spirit" of Jesus, rather than Judaism's disobedience) gives us such confidence, we can be very bold (learning to use God's name properly, which Judaism does not). We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory (of God's righteousness), even though it was destined to fade away (by Judaism's growing disobedience to the Ten Commandments). But the people’s minds were hardened (to disobey the Ten Commandments), and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth (of their disobedience by replacing God's Commandments with their own human traditions). And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ (as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand (they disobey the Ten Commandments by substituting them with human traditions). But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror who obeyed the Ten Commandments as our example and Paul is not referring to the Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments), and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (from sin and not from God's Ten Commandments). So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord (in obeying completely the Ten Commandments by removing Judaism's disobedience). And the Lord—who is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" Paul is telling us to image as in a mirror and not the Holy Spirit, whose job is to tell us things through prophets and remind us of Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror)—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image. (2 Corinthians 3:4-18 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[DamianWarS]

The parenthesis in scripture, was added by man

The oldest manuscripts would favour Mark as the original author of these words. If by "man" you mean Mark then you would be challenging the words of an apostle. There comes a point where it's not reasonable to start crossing things out claiming they are words of man. What measure do you use if something is an addition of man or something is not? What authority are you willing to challenge as not inspired? The vast majority of scholarship and translations today affirm the parenthetical as the words of Mark so it is a bold claim to say otherwise and something that needs more then mere feeling that you don't like something so call it "of man".

On top of this the majority texts or KJV variants that say (quoting KJV) "purging all meats" agree with the minority texts reading "making all foods clean". The wording is different but the meaning is the same. So there should be no confusion here. What exactly are you saying is "of man" and how did you determine this?

 

[trophy33]

Define “families”. A “family” can be any category or genre you want.

A group of manuscripts sharing common traits, different from the traits of other groups of manuscripts.

We can see not just "adding" as you propose. We find adding, removing, editing, composing texts. Whole chapters are different. And of course also the collections of writings as such are different.

Compare, for example, the citations of the OT in your NT with your OT. They will be significantly different. Do you know why?

 

[DamianWarS]

I do not believe this, you can, its your free will. Jesus quoted from the Scriptures from the OT, as did the apostles, no editing of God's Word.

Broadly there are considered to be 4 sources from just the Torah. Yahwist (J), Levitical/Priestly (P), Elohist (E), and Deuteronomist (D). This is derived from a critical analysis of things like writting styles, accounts that are repeated, terminologies, as well as other things. On top of this there is a 5th source that acts like an editor known for compiling everything together, who would have also had authority to add to or redact the accounts, and this would have been during the time of the second temple period.

For example Gen 1 and Gen 2 appear to be two different creation accounts. One way you can determine this is the intro and close of the Gen 1 creation account (closing in 2:3) compared with the intro and end of the Gen 2 creation account functioning like book ends to each account rather than one continuous account. They have details, order, characters and goals that all differ plus use different words for God. (Gen 1 uses Elohim where Gen 2 uses Yahweh). Gen 1 is considered from a priestly source where Gen 2 from a Yahwist source.

The Yahwist source is known for it's use of Yahweh for God where the Elowist is know for its use of Elohim for God. However the preistly source is known for matters of law, genelogies and core theological concepts, thus Gen 1 is often associated with a priestly source due to its core theological content over merely it's use of Elohim for God.

This will not be well received but history shows during the Babylonian capacity or second temple period the 7 day week was adopted by the Hebrews as the Babylonians are credited with the 7 day week, each day named after the known planets and venerated (including the sun and moon) this even goes as far to a type of observed sabbath. Thus 7 is adopted and themes adopted to champion 7 day week values and most prominently the Sabbath. Such a adoption due to its deep doctrinal impact would fall under a priestly jurisdiction.

Ancient people groups had limited access to record scripture and often commited it to memory. When it was written down it didn't have a long life and had to be recorded over and over again. Various wars, captivities and desporas (which the Hebrews had many) would have had dramatic effect on the ability to perseve these texts. The dead sea scroll are some of the oldest examples we have and they are only dated to the 3rd century BC.

We have to trust that the entire process is inspired not just the author's hand but those commited to its preservation as well as compiling and editing, even if values/accounts are adopted from surrounding cultures and at much later periods then when the actual accounts took place. Even if we say Moses penned the creation account at best he is 2500 years removed from the event based on biblical dates. Moses did not witness these events yet we don't question God influence.

Passing years are nothing for God, he has stitched it all together to create a final tapestry greater than it's sum total of what would otherwise look like a mess of broken pieces. This itself has a redemptive message echoed since creation of bringing order to chaos, I don't try and cover it up or reject it but rather champion it to show glory to God.

 

[JSRG]

Jesus explained what He was referring to as it was a parable and Mark is speaking of this same parable which Jesus plainly explained what He meant Mark 7:20-23. The parenthesis in scripture, was added by man.

The specific usage of the "(" and ")" symbols in various translations was indeed added, as those symbols did not exist in Greek at the time. But the text within them in Mark 7:19 was in the Greek and was not added by the translators as you have claimed. It's right there at the end in the Greek: "καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα." That's not added; that's in the text. This is translated out in the NIV as "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" or the NASB as "(Thereby He declared all foods clean.)" and the ESV as "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)"

I'm not really fond of the usage of parentheses here. They're used to try to indicate that this was a remark by the author of Mark, but unfortunately it clearly confuses people who think it is a sign that the text was not in the original Greek.

Given there is some misinformation about this portion of the verse, it might be good to go about explaining it, as the way one arrives at this translation, due to involving some constructions in Greek that do not actually exist in English, requiring the translator to get into some bits of awkwardness.

(Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Greek. But everything I am about to say is, as far as I can tell, very accurate, and strongly based on information I have found from people who are experts on Greek)

The last three words are simple enough, meaning "all (παντα) the (τα) food (βρωματα)". Therefore, what concerns us is the first word, καθαρίζων. This verb means to clean or purify, including the meaning of to pronounce something clean (see Acts 10:15 and Acts 11:19). In this specific case, the verb is in the Nominative Masculine Singular version of the Present Active Participle form. That may have sounded like gibberish, but to try to make it simple, the Participle form of a verb has several uses, which are explained well here. From context, it is obvious it is not the adjective or substantive use (#1 or #2) so it is adverbially (#3). In other words, this verb is connected to another verb. There are several ways the adverbial use can be used, but all boil down to it being used in connection with another verb, such as to say that one verb caused the other, or they are being done at the same time.

Now, καθαρίζων, as noted, is Present and Active. That means it's in the present tense and is active (as opposed to passive; it is the difference between "I eat food" (active) versus "the food is eaten by me" (passive)). That is, the subject is doing the action rather than having it done to them.

More important, however, is that καθαρίζων is the Nominative Masculine Singular. Nominative Masculine Singular means that means the subject is in the nominative case (Greek nouns, as well as things that modify them like adjectives, have different cases depending on grammar--nominative normally denotes the subject of a sentence), is masculine, and is singular. In other words, some masculine singular noun is doing something, and the καθαρίζων is accompanying that other verb. Most verb forms in Greek do not specify the gender of its subject, but this one does.

Thus, to figure out how this all fits together, we have to look for another verb that is being done by a masculine noun. There is, as far as I can tell, only one that fits: The earlier part in Matthew 7:18 where the subject is Jesus and the verb is "said" (the word Jesus is not stated, but is to be inferred). There is no other masculine nominative noun that has an accompanying verb that I see ("sewer" is masculine, but there is no accompanying verb for it, and furthermore is accusative rather than nominative). So it is saying that, in conjunction with Jesus saying something, Jesus cleansed all food or declared all food clean. However, due to the verbs being separated by a bunch of dialogue, and English not having a participle form that can function as this, the translations have to try to express this connection by adding things. The ESV's "Thus he declared all foods clean" therefore adds the word "thus" (the NASB uses thereby) to convey this. The NIV, which is not as literal of a translation, tries to make it more clear by restating the original verb and noun that is being linked more clearly, with "In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean."

So, no, the parenthetical was not the addition of any translator, but was in the text. Again: καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα is in the Greek.

But wait, someone might ask. Don't older Bibles render it differently, such as most notably the KJV? Compare the KJV with ESV in Mark 7:18-19:

KJV:
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

ESV:
And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Part of the difference is linguistic drift ("meats" and "purge" had somewhat different connotations back then), but we see a difference beyond that. So, why does the KJV (and other Bibles from around that period, like the Geneva Bible) just have "purging all meats" instead of something like "Thus he declared all foods clean"? It's not an issue of translation so much as a difference in the Greek text itself. The bolded section in the ESV and other modern translations was translated from "καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα" but the KJV was translated from "καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα". The difference is a single letter, ω vs, ο, but this actually changes the meaning and translation.

You see, if you have the ο in καθαριζον, then it's in the Neuter Nominative Singular form. Jesus works fine with a masculine form of the verb--as, grammatically speaking, Jesus is a masculine noun--but with this, we need to look instead for a neuter subject instead. But the only neuter nominative singular I see is the word παν (meaning everything, translated as "whatsoever thing" in the KJV and "whatever" in the ESV) and which is mentioned in Mark 7:18. This is actually an adjective of an unspecified noun--you can do that in Greek, use adjectives without the noun if the reader can figure it out from context--but we know the noun in question is neuter and singular by παν, as it is used with neuter and singular nouns (in terms of cases, it can be used for nominative, accusative, or vocative). Therefore, the unspecified "everything" noun works fine with the neuter nominative singular καθαριζον. And the "everything" is doing something also, namely going through the stomach and exiting. This gives us the statement that everything that goes through the digestive system and into the sewer purges all food (not that the digestive system or sewer is doing the purging, bur rather the stuff going through it purges the food). This seems a bit odd--the food is being purged by other food?--but if you're working with the neuter form it seems it's the best you can get. The KJV translates accordingly.

So, why the difference in the Greek text? The reason for this difference is due to them having different text bases. The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek text put together by a Catholic priest named Erasmus which he made after looking at several Greek manuscripts and choosing what he thought were the best readings from them. The Textus Receptus is not without its issues, one of the most obvious ones because he really only had a few manuscripts to work with, resulting in some rather questionable readings (one particularly notorious case is how his manuscript of Revelation lacked the ending, so for that final portion he back-translated from a Latin version of Revelation to create the Greek). Later textual bases, like the Nestle-Alend text that a lot of new translations are primarily or entirely based on, involve looking at more manuscripts than just a handful in order to get more accurate readings. And this results in the usage of καθαριζων (masculine) instead of καθαριζον (neuter).

I'm hardly an expert on textual criticism so I can't exactly mount a big argument on why to use the masculine form rather than the neuter beyond what amounts to an appeal to authority (that is, the experts say this is believed to be the original reading). But, I will note that of the earliest manuscripts of Mark 7:19 that we have, four of the five have καθαρίζων (masculine) and none have καθαριζον (neuter); if you are wondering, the fifth one has καθαριζει (a quite rare reading), the simple third person present active singular, which I believe could be understood in both manners. Those that quoted it--Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom--all have καθαρίζων (masculine), or at least that's what GNT Reader tells me. So there's definitely a strong case that the version used in the modern translations is the original one. The theory as to how the neuter form of καθαριζον got introduced into some manuscripts is that a scribe, confused about the apparent lack of a masculine noun nearby, thought that καθαρίζων (masculine) was an error and switched it to καθαριζον to correct it.

tl;dr: The words in parentheses (e.g. "Thus he declared all foods clean") were NOT added by the translators. They're right there in the Greek text: "καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα".

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The specific usage of the "(" and ")" symbols in various translations was indeed added, as those symbols did not exist in Greek at the time. But the text within them in Mark 7:19 was in the Greek and was not added by the translators as you have claimed. It's right there at the end in the Greek: "καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα." That's not added; that's in the text. This is translated out in the NIV as "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" or the NASB as "(Thereby He declared all foods clean.)" and the ESV as "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)"

I'm not really fond of the usage of parentheses here. They're used to try to indicate that this was a remark by the author of Mark, but unfortunately it clearly confuses people who think it is a sign that the text was not in the original Greek.

Given there is some misinformation about this portion of the verse, it might be good to go about explaining it, as the way one arrives at this translation, due to involving some constructions in Greek that do not actually exist in English, requiring the translator to get into some bits of awkwardness.

(Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Greek. But everything I am about to say is, as far as I can tell, very accurate, and strongly based on information I have found from people who are experts on Greek)

The last three words are simple enough, meaning "all (παντα) the (τα) food (βρωματα)". Therefore, what concerns us is the first word, καθαρίζων. This verb means to clean or purify, including the meaning of to pronounce something clean (see Acts 10:15 and Acts 11:19). In this specific case, the verb is in the Nominative Masculine Singular version of the Present Active Participle form. That may have sounded like gibberish, but to try to make it simple, the Participle form of a verb has several uses, which are explained well here. From context, it is obvious it is not the adjective or substantive use (#1 or #2) so it is adverbially (#3). In other words, this verb is connected to another verb. There are several ways the adverbial use can be used, but all boil down to it being used in connection with another verb, such as to say that one verb caused the other, or they are being done at the same time.

Now, καθαρίζων, as noted, is Present and Active. That means it's in the present tense and is active (as opposed to passive; it is the difference between "I eat food" (active) versus "the food is eaten by me" (passive)). That is, the subject is doing the action rather than having it done to them.

More important, however, is that καθαρίζων is the Nominative Masculine Singular. Nominative Masculine Singular means that means the subject is in the nominative case (Greek nouns, as well as things that modify them like adjectives, have different cases depending on grammar--nominative normally denotes the subject of a sentence), is masculine, and is singular. In other words, some masculine singular noun is doing something, and the καθαρίζων is accompanying that other verb. Most verb forms in Greek do not specify the gender of its subject, but this one does.

Thus, to figure out how this all fits together, we have to look for another verb that is being done by a masculine noun. There is, as far as I can tell, only one that fits: The earlier part in Matthew 7:18 where the subject is Jesus and the verb is "said" (the word Jesus is not stated, but is to be inferred). There is no other masculine nominative noun that has an accompanying verb that I see ("sewer" is masculine, but there is no accompanying verb for it, and furthermore is accusative rather than nominative). So it is saying that, in conjunction with Jesus saying something, Jesus cleansed all food or declared all food clean. However, due to the verbs being separated by a bunch of dialogue, and English not having a participle form that can function as this, the translations have to try to express this connection by adding things. The ESV's "Thus he declared all foods clean" therefore adds the word "thus" (the NASB uses thereby) to convey this. The NIV, which is not as literal of a translation, tries to make it more clear by restating the original verb and noun that is being linked more clearly, with "In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean."

So, no, the parenthetical was not the addition of any translator, but was in the text. Again: καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα is in the Greek.

But wait, someone might ask. Don't older Bibles render it differently, such as most notably the KJV? Compare the KJV with ESV in Mark 7:18-19:

KJV:
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

ESV:
And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Part of the difference is linguistic drift ("meats" and "purge" had somewhat different connotations back then), but we see a difference beyond that. So, why does the KJV (and other Bibles from around that period, like the Geneva Bible) just have "purging all meats" instead of something like "Thus he declared all foods clean"? It's not an issue of translation so much as a difference in the Greek text itself. The bolded section in the ESV and other modern translations was translated from "καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα" but the KJV was translated from "καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα". The difference is a single letter, ω vs, ο, but this actually changes the meaning and translation.

You see, if you have the ο in καθαριζον, then it's in the Neuter Nominative Singular form. Jesus works fine with a masculine form of the verb--as, grammatically speaking, Jesus is a masculine noun--but with this, we need to look instead for a neuter subject instead. But the only neuter nominative singular I see is the word παν (meaning everything, translated as "whatsoever thing" in the KJV and "whatever" in the ESV) and which is mentioned in Mark 7:18. This is actually an adjective of an unspecified noun--you can do that in Greek, use adjectives without the noun if the reader can figure it out from context--but we know the noun in question is neuter and singular by παν, as it is used with neuter and singular nouns (in terms of cases, it can be used for nominative, accusative, or vocative). Therefore, the unspecified "everything" noun works fine with the neuter nominative singular καθαριζον. And the "everything" is doing something also, namely going through the stomach and exiting. This gives us the statement that everything that goes through the digestive system and into the sewer purges all food (not that the digestive system or sewer is doing the purging, bur rather the stuff going through it purges the food). This seems a bit odd--the food is being purged by other food?--but if you're working with the neuter form it seems it's the best you can get. The KJV translates accordingly.

So, why the difference in the Greek text? The reason for this difference is due to them having different text bases. The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek text put together by a Catholic priest named Erasmus which he made after looking at several Greek manuscripts and choosing what he thought were the best readings from them. The Textus Receptus is not without its issues, one of the most obvious ones because he really only had a few manuscripts to work with, resulting in some rather questionable readings (one particularly notorious case is how his manuscript of Revelation lacked the ending, so for that final portion he back-translated from a Latin version of Revelation to create the Greek). Later textual bases, like the Nestle-Alend text that a lot of new translations are primarily or entirely based on, involve looking at more manuscripts than just a handful in order to get more accurate readings. And this results in the usage of καθαριζων (masculine) instead of καθαριζον (neuter).

I'm hardly an expert on textual criticism so I can't exactly mount a big argument on why to use the masculine form rather than the neuter beyond what amounts to an appeal to authority (that is, the experts say this is believed to be the original reading). But, I will note that of the earliest manuscripts of Mark 7:19 that we have, four of the five have καθαρίζων (masculine) and none have καθαριζον (neuter); if you are wondering, the fifth one has καθαριζει (a quite rare reading), the simple third person present active singular, which I believe could be understood in both manners. Those that quoted it--Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom--all have καθαρίζων (masculine), or at least that's what GNT Reader tells me. So there's definitely a strong case that the version used in the modern translations is the original one. The theory as to how the neuter form of καθαριζον got introduced into some manuscripts is that a scribe, confused about the apparent lack of a masculine noun nearby, thought that καθαρίζων (masculine) was an error and switched it to καθαριζον to correct it.

tl;dr: The words in parentheses (e.g. "Thus he declared all foods clean") were NOT added by the translators. They're right there in the Greek text: "καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα".

There are many scholars who debate this online.

Context trumps everything. Its about eating with unwashed hands Mat 15:1 Jesus then used a parable, an illustration using food, but not about food and Jesus explained the parable.

Mark is referring to the same parable in Mat 15 and Jesus explained the parable and its not about food.

Mat 15:15 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.”

Mat 15:16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

Same explanation in Mark, nothing about food

Mark 7: 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [g]thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

Something God deems as an abomination is a strong word, and being consumed for eating something God deems an abominations even stronger Isa 66:17 Peter never knew anything about Jesus making all foods clean Acts 10:14 and he was the one asking to explain what Jesus meant in Mat 15 and Mark 7 so if it was about making all foods clean, Peter would have known.

God gave us plenty of clean foods and fruits and vegetables, but God does grant us all free will. I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[trophy33]

There are many scholars who debate this online.

What scholars and how many? Where online? Are they, but any chance, Seventh Day Adventists or similar? Be specific.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Brother, Paul is replacing what was "etched in stone" with the "Spirit" and is not referring to other laws not "etched in stone" as you have expanded the scope of his message. You are giving Paul's message greater scope than the context of his message about specifically what was "etched in stone", the Ten Commandments. Notice that I removed the word law that was added by the translators when there is no mention of law in the original message but of the "letters etched in stone".

The old way, with laws/letters etched in stone, led to death, though it began with such glory that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God, even though the brightness was already fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:7 NLT fixed)​

The original is not speaking about laws in general but about the "letters etched in stone", the Ten Commandments.

We are confident of all this because of our great trust in God through Christ (as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). It is not that we think we are qualified to do anything on our own (like excusing our disobedience of the Ten Commandments as coming from the Holy Spirit). Our qualification comes from God (sending us Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). This is a covenant not of the letter (Ten Commandments), but of the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror and not the Holy Spirit used as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments when Jesus obeyed them). The letter ends in death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin); but the Spirit (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror) gives life (the removal of Judaism's disobedience to obey completely the Ten Commandments). The old way (God's "order" by the prophet Moses), with letters etched in stone (Ten Commandments), led to death (sabotaged by Judaism to not remove sin), though it began with such glory (leading to righteousness) that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God (which is His righteousness expressed in the Ten Commandments), even though the brightness was already fading away (Judaism's disobedience to the Ten Commandments). Shouldn’t we expect far greater glory under the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror who obeyed completely the Ten Commandments for us to do likewise), now that the Holy (added by the translators) Spirit (not the Holy Spirit but Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror) gives life? If the old way (written letters etched in stone), which brings condemnation (Judaism disobeys the Ten Commandments by replacing them with human traditions), was glorious (leading to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror), which makes us right with God (removes sin)! In fact, that first glory (which led to righteousness) was not glorious at all compared with the overwhelming glory (leading to righteousness) of the new way (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). So if the old way (written letters etched in stone), which has been replaced, was glorious (led to righteousness), how much more glorious (leading to righteousness) is the new (Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror), which remains forever! Since this new way (of imaging as in a mirror the model "Spirit" of Jesus, rather than Judaism's disobedience) gives us such confidence, we can be very bold (learning to use God's name properly, which Judaism does not). We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory (of God's righteousness), even though it was destined to fade away (by Judaism's growing disobedience to the Ten Commandments). But the people’s minds were hardened (to disobey the Ten Commandments), and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth (of their disobedience by replacing God's Commandments with their own human traditions). And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ (as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror). Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand (they disobey the Ten Commandments by substituting them with human traditions). But whenever someone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. For the Lord is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror who obeyed the Ten Commandments as our example and Paul is not referring to the Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments), and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (from sin and not from God's Ten Commandments). So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord (in obeying completely the Ten Commandments by removing Judaism's disobedience). And the Lord—who is the Spirit (Jesus is the model "Spirit" Paul is telling us to image as in a mirror and not the Holy Spirit, whose job is to tell us things through prophets and remind us of Jesus as the model "Spirit" to image as in a mirror)—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image. (2 Corinthians 3:4-18 NLT fixed and overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Yeah I use the NASB version and it has the word “letters” in verse 7 as well. Although I don’t see what difference it makes since either way everyone in the thread recognized that Paul was talking about the 10 commandments. You’re adding a lot of commentary to the passage that isn’t supported by the text. It doesn’t matter if the word “Holy” appears before the word Spirit, we have only received ONE Spirut, which is the Holy Spirit. There is no other Spirit that we receive. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God who teaches and guides us. There’s nothing in the passage about obeying the same commandments that Christ obeyed.

 

[guevaraj]

Yeah I use the NASB version and it has the word “letters” in verse 7 as well. Although I don’t see what difference it makes since either way everyone in the thread recognized that Paul was talking about the 10 commandments. You’re adding a lot of commentary to the passage that isn’t supported by the text. It doesn’t matter if the word “Holy” appears before the word Spirit, we have only received ONE Spirut, which is the Holy Spirit. There is no other Spirit that we receive. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God who teaches and guides us. There’s nothing in the passage about obeying the same commandments that Christ obeyed.

Brother, it makes a big difference because Jesus is an external visible role model of obedience in the flesh for us to copy as one would see ourselves externally in a mirror. The translators have used the Holy Spirit as a replacement for the Ten Commandments written in stone when that is not what Paul teaches. The "Spirit" Paul speaks of is external to us in Jesus for us to model as one would look into a mirror and not the internal Holy Spirit. Jesus is our model "Spirit" to do likewise! In the following passage, Paul is not talking about a hidden inside Spirit, but an externally visible "Spirit" in Jesus, because God is Spirit. Where we must "image" or copy ourselves to the pattern of Jesus' example, as we "see" our lives "reflect" Jesus as we would see ourselves externally in a mirror, comparing ourselves to Jesus' in the flesh model of obedience instead of Judaism's disobedience, which leads to death in a "veil" that cancels the word of God through replacement human traditions that disobey the Ten Commandments, canceling the purpose of the Ten Commandments to remove sin. A "veil" that cancels the glory of God, like our modern Sunday human tradition, replaces God's true Sabbath in the book of Hebrews, when Paul tells us such replacements that keep the sin God's Ten Commandments are meant to remove kill and only obeying the Ten Commandments as Jesus shows us how to obey them saves from sin. Notice the external nature of reflecting what we see in Jesus in the flesh is an external example-Spirit, an external-visible example "Spirit" of obedience. Jesus, in the flesh life of obedience, is the "Spirit" to "image", because Jesus is a visible in the flesh "Spirit" for us to model after His obedience instead of Judaism's disobedience.

But whenever someone turns to the Lord (Jesus), the veil (Judaism's human traditions that cancel the glory of God) is taken away. For the Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit (Jesus is the Spirit Paul speaks of as a role model of obedience superior to the Ten Commandments written in stone), and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is (circumcising us of the veil in Judaism), there is freedom (from sin and not from the Ten Commandments that remove sin when obeyed). So all of us who have had that veil (Judaism's human traditions that cancel the glory of God) removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord (obedience to the Ten Commandments by copying the image of Jesus as a role model and not the Holy Spirit as an excuse to disobey the Ten Commandments that remove sin when obeyed). And the Lord (Jesus)—who is the Spirit (Jesus is the Spirit)—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image (Jesus as our role model of obedience to the Ten Commandments written in stone). (2 Corinthians 3:16-18 NLT overlaid with commentary)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

 

[BNR32FAN]

Brother, it makes a big difference because Jesus is an external visible role model of obedience in the flesh for us to copy as one would see ourselves externally in a mirror. The translators have used the Holy Spirit as a replacement for the Ten Commandments written in stone when that is not what Paul teaches. The "Spirit" Paul speaks of is external to us in Jesus for us to model as one would look into a mirror and not the internal Holy Spirit.

No the Spirit mentioned is internal not external.

“being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The contrast in this statement is between external and internal. Tablets of stone are external, human hearts are internal.

 

[guevaraj]

No the Spirit mentioned is internal not external.

“being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The contrast in this statement is between external and internal. Tablets of stone are external, human hearts are internal.

Brother, what Paul says is superior to what is written in stone is Jesus as a model of obedience to what is written in stone, because a role model puts what is written in stone in our hearts through Jesus' exemplary life of obedience to God.

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel after those days,” says the LORD. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the LORD.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the LORD. “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34 NLT)​

The following passage is an example of how Jesus puts what is written in stone in our hearts by circumcising disobedience in Judaism so that we fully obey, according to Jesus' role model, what is written in stone.

Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commandments from God.’ For you ignore God’s law(nomos)/commandment(entolé) and substitute your own tradition.” Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law(nomos)/commandment(entolé) in order to hold on to your own tradition. For instance, Moses gave you this law(nomos)/commandment(entolé) from God: ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ In this way, you let them disregard their needy parents. And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.” (Mark 7:6-13 NLT fixed)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge