Impossible conversation: Jesus and Nicodemus: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN

by Terry 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  menrov

  I do not know the background fully other then what I read in John about this.

  If the language spoken was Aramaic then what happened is that the capture of the event was translated from Aramaic into Greek. In other words, the conversation happened in Aramaic but Nicodemus did not grasp it fully and was wondering what to do.

  In any language, if someone says to you that you "have to be born xxxx" (where xxxx is the Aramaic word Jesus usd and for which in Greek there is word with two meanings, again or from above), is rather confusing.

  The same with other expressions, like when you read we need to eat His flesh or drink His blood. Most Jews did not grasp the meaning and felt offended and left.

  It does not mean the event did not happen. The confusion is often generated due to translations. Very often languages cannot be translated 1:1 into another language. Because a language originates and develops independently from other languages.

  I therefore believe that the event happened and that the original Greek translator had to use a word in Greek that happen to have 2 meanings. Did he choose the right word? Did he really undrstand the original Aramaic word that Jesus and Nicodemus used? Those are problems for the translator not for the original players of the event, nor for the reliability of the event itself.

  Technically, I could live with the following translation for this:
  .... have to be born again, from above.

  Both meanings of the Greek word fit here, because, if one needs to be born again, it can only be from above, as physically, it is simply not possible.

  And I fully understand the confusion with Nicodemus because if someone would say this to me in Dutch, my mother tongue, where in this case there is not one word that means both again and from above, the use of either would still be very confusing:

  ...have to be born again is just as confusing as have to be born from above.

  
  
• 

  Clambake

  I can’t claim to be an expert on the subject but I have seen a few debates between Ehrman and Daniel B Wallace and what scares me about Ehrman about is he is very similar to the Watchtower, dealing more in conspiracies than probabilities

  1. All Christian scholars know there are a number of textural variations. Scribes aren’t photocopy machines. There are even about 20 verses that might have been just plain added. Doctrinally it doesn’t change anything. It is the 99.5 % that is the same that is more interesting than the .5 that is different.

  2. Since we don’t have the original copies of the new testament , how do you know it wasn’t all changed ? Well that kind of logic seems to be the foundation of all so called Christian cults, the bible is the inspired word of god, expect where it was changed. If the 5000 or so 3rd century copies that are 99 % the same isn’t enough proof that it most likely wasn’t altered , nothing will ever be enough proof.
• 

  Heaven

  menrov said: ...have to be born again is just as confusing as have to be born from above.

  I agree. Both statements are also complete wack-a-doodle... fantasy ... and cannot be taken seriously.
  
• 

  Terry

  Clambake: what scares me about Ehrman about is he is very similar to the Watchtower, dealing more in conspiracies than probabilities

  
  

  _______________________

  Please give a couple of specific examples and define what you mean by "conspiracies," please.

  What do you mean "scares me"?

  
  
• 

  Half banana

  The very fact that the Greek pun of “born from above” and simultaneously “born again” is included in the Received Text indicates the source material being Greek and not Aramaic which as said indicates it could not be not verbatim or an historically truthful conversation.

  It also demonstrates the very good chance of early Christian writings being altered at will to conform to higher literary taste and for greater religious impact. Hand written text was ever susceptible to corrupt transmission. Compound this with the impossibility of the words being actually remembered by anyone (let alone false memories) shows that like most of the so called sacred scriptures, they are essentially a literary work, mainly fiction, drawing on older folk tales written by educated scribes in the employ of religious leaders or by those cult leaders themselves.

  Thank you for your input Terry.