The Bible doesn't say to "have Jesus in your heart," also the Bible wasn't written in English so sometimes an alternate word needs to be included to portray the understanding of the idea behind it. This is what I found by doing a word search,
26.3 καρδίαa, ας f: (a figurative extension of meaning of καρδία ‘heart,’ not occurring in the NT in its literal sense) the causative source of a person’s psychological life in its various aspects, but with special emphasis upon thoughts—‘heart, inner self, mind.’1 ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ‘you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart’ Mt 22:37; τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται ‘the secret thoughts of his heart will be brought into the open’ 1 Cor 14:25; ἕκαστος καθὼς προῄρηται τῇ καρδίᾳ ‘each person (should give) what he has decided in his heart’ 2 Cor 9:7; κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς ‘because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath’ Ro 2:5. It is often possible to render καρδίαa by a number of different terms depending upon the immediate context, for example, ‘mind,’ ‘intention,’ ‘purpose,’ or ‘desire.’ In many languages it is quite impossible to use a term meaning ‘heart,’ since such a term may not lend itself to figurative extension in meaning. Often the equivalent of καρδία is ‘liver,’ while in a number of languages it is ‘stomach’ or ‘bowels.’
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (320). New York: United Bible Societies.
[You do realize the Bible is just a fairy tale written by native Greek speakers and not actually based on real events of eye witnesses of Jesus, right?]
I think it's too dogmatic to say science is wrong; perhaps we need greater revelation and understanding to see the correlation of how both can be true. There is true and truth and they are not necessarily the same.
Also, the Bible was not written as a text book. It is a story of God's relationship to his people.
"Our" New Testament was written in Greek. Jesus did not speak Greek so far as we know, and the New Testament Greek is poorly written, virtually illiterately written.
It's not really pertinent to say, "Jesus didn't speak Greek." Julius Caesar didn't speak English, but there's no denying that Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" was written in English, nor does this imply there is a Latin version of it on which it is based.
There is/was no Aramaic/Hebrew New Testament, there were only oral traditions and probably a document containing quotes attributed to Jesus, but even this (the Q document) was probably also written in Greek, as it is so closely followed throughout the Gospels that used it as a source.
One more thing: the "Greek New Testament" is a set of poor translations of other books, not originals, as you surmise. I will accept that those originals could have come from the collection you labeled Q Sources, except for the oral assertion.
Much of our English Old Testament is not that different in that respect (and the translators were literate).
You call the Q document a theory and you think you can confidently claim that the New Testament (by which I assume you mean primarily the Gospels) are translations?
I'm not sure there's any evidence whatsoever to suggest the gospels were ever written in or based on works written in Aramaic, or any language but Koine Greek.
That is where our disconnect lies. There is evidence. I cannot cite it. I have not had this discussion with anyone for more than a decade. I would have to do research to try to prove this to you, and after all the research, it would not change your mind, which I have learned does not change, once it is made up. I am content to agree to disagree, as I realize that the burden of proof is on my shoulders and I am unwilling to take the effort to prove it.
I think that guy who posted above could probably help, as he maybe he knows Greek and can attest that no original work would be produced in the childish Greek we received.
Although, he may be too religious to acknowledge such, I don't know.
Hahahaha.
ReplyDeleteThe heart, as you know, is a part of the brain in this context. Once upon a time it was believed that your heart contained your thoughts.
This Christian remains un-stumped.
Are you saying the literal word of God is not always scientifically accurate?
DeleteThe Bible doesn't say to "have Jesus in your heart," also the Bible wasn't written in English so sometimes an alternate word needs to be included to portray the understanding of the idea behind it. This is what I found by doing a word search,
Delete26.3 καρδίαa, ας f: (a figurative extension of meaning of καρδία ‘heart,’ not occurring in the NT in its literal sense) the causative source of a person’s psychological life in its various aspects, but with special emphasis upon thoughts—‘heart, inner self, mind.’1 ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ‘you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart’ Mt 22:37; τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται ‘the secret thoughts of his heart will be brought into the open’ 1 Cor 14:25; ἕκαστος καθὼς προῄρηται τῇ καρδίᾳ ‘each person (should give) what he has decided in his heart’ 2 Cor 9:7; κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς ‘because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath’ Ro 2:5.
It is often possible to render καρδίαa by a number of different terms depending upon the immediate context, for example, ‘mind,’ ‘intention,’ ‘purpose,’ or ‘desire.’ In many languages it is quite impossible to use a term meaning ‘heart,’ since such a term may not lend itself to figurative extension in meaning. Often the equivalent of καρδία is ‘liver,’ while in a number of languages it is ‘stomach’ or ‘bowels.’
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (320). New York: United Bible Societies.
The New Testament was not written in Greek, but we are getting somewhere, nonetheless.
DeleteI don't think Yeshua even spoke Greek at all.
The New Testament was written in Greek.
Delete[You do realize the Bible is just a fairy tale written by native Greek speakers and not actually based on real events of eye witnesses of Jesus, right?]
DeleteScience is mad-made, and cannot be compared to the God's Truth. If science and God disagree, science must be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think it's too dogmatic to say science is wrong; perhaps we need greater revelation and understanding to see the correlation of how both can be true. There is true and truth and they are not necessarily the same.
DeleteAlso, the Bible was not written as a text book. It is a story of God's relationship to his people.
I would look to Ephesians 3:16-19 or Romans 10:9 for reference to Jesus in your heart (then again, I'm no cardiochristologist).
ReplyDeleteBret,
ReplyDelete"Our" New Testament was written in Greek. Jesus did not speak Greek so far as we know, and the New Testament Greek is poorly written, virtually illiterately written.
It's not really pertinent to say, "Jesus didn't speak Greek." Julius Caesar didn't speak English, but there's no denying that Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" was written in English, nor does this imply there is a Latin version of it on which it is based.
DeleteThere is/was no Aramaic/Hebrew New Testament, there were only oral traditions and probably a document containing quotes attributed to Jesus, but even this (the Q document) was probably also written in Greek, as it is so closely followed throughout the Gospels that used it as a source.
The Q Source is a theory. The "Greek Authors" of the New Testament were illiterate, and so far as we know, Yeshua was not.
DeleteIt is not comparable to Caeser, as Shakespeare was literate and did not purport to speak for Caesar.
Shakespear is an admitted work of fiction.
Shakespear is an admitted work of fiction.
DeleteI'll admit that the New Testament is a work of fiction.
One more thing: the "Greek New Testament" is a set of poor translations of other books, not originals, as you surmise. I will accept that those originals could have come from the collection you labeled Q Sources, except for the oral assertion.
DeleteMuch of our English Old Testament is not that different in that respect (and the translators were literate).
You call the Q document a theory and you think you can confidently claim that the New Testament (by which I assume you mean primarily the Gospels) are translations?
DeleteI'm not sure there's any evidence whatsoever to suggest the gospels were ever written in or based on works written in Aramaic, or any language but Koine Greek.
That is where our disconnect lies. There is evidence. I cannot cite it. I have not had this discussion with anyone for more than a decade. I would have to do research to try to prove this to you, and after all the research, it would not change your mind, which I have learned does not change, once it is made up. I am content to agree to disagree, as I realize that the burden of proof is on my shoulders and I am unwilling to take the effort to prove it.
DeleteI think that guy who posted above could probably help, as he maybe he knows Greek and can attest that no original work would be produced in the childish Greek we received.
Although, he may be too religious to acknowledge such, I don't know.
Andrea is a she.
DeleteCrap!
DeleteJesus probably spoke Aramaic, and may have had some familiarity with Hebrew, but not Greek, which is why the New Testament has childish grammar.
ReplyDelete