Church Organization

[JohnHurt]

Christ did not create the "New Testament" Canon. The "Easter Letter" of Athanasius in 367 AD under the Constantine church created the NT Canon.

The accepted text was recorded earlier then this and it did include Paul’s letters.

Paul's writings validated Constantine's success at eliminating the Sabbath and creating Sunday worship, with his edict of 321 AD. That is why Paul's writings are in the New Testament Canon.

I know this is a big deal to you, but in the sections I recall the phrase “first day of the week” often in Greek looked more like the Sabbath

κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἕκαστος ὑμῶν παρ᾿ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω θησαυρίζων ὅ τι ἐὰν εὐοδῶται, ἵνα μὴ ὅταν ἔλθω τότε λογεῖαι γίνωνται.

Here is Latin, might make it easier to catch

per unam sabbati unusquisque vestrum apud se ponat recondens quod ei beneplacuerit ut non cum venero tunc collectae fiant

1Co 16:2  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

We know that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was written around 37AD, and was later translated into Greek. John's Gospel was written around 80 AD. The early church accepted these Gospels, but not the writings of Paul.

We don’t know this, it’s speculation. The second part is factually wrong. I can show you lists of text the earlier church accepted and Paul’s writings are among them.

[

b]The Gospel of Matthew - that was the Canon for the Early Church. They did not need any other writings. We do not need anything but what Christ said, either. [/b]

Conjecture. You have no basis for this.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were the actual records of the early church, prior to 70 AD. In them, James is called "The Teacher of Righteousness", while Paul is called "The Spouter of Lies".

Please do show some evidence for this claim. As far as I’m aware the Dead Sea scrolls were Old Testament writings.

It wasn't until after the Gnostic Marcion of 140 AD, who invented a New Testament Canon of an abbreviated Luke, Acts, and the writings of Paul, that the shift away from Christ with the emphasis to the writings of these other men began.

Again, conjecture without historical evidence.

So "the men who determined what to keep for Scripture reading basically all endorsed Paul?" - these men who made the NT Canon regarded themselves and their "church" as superior to Christ and YHVH, These men, and their writings, and their supposed "church", should be ignored.

They made many innovations to the Teachings of Christ, "just one" of which is changing the Sabbath to Sunday.

These men of old you seem remarkably opinionated on although most of what you have said about them is wrong. Have you actually read the early church writings or has someone else told you these lies?

The "first day of the week" is the "first of sabbaths" in the Greek. It is the first of the 7 sabbaths counted until Pentecost. Lev 23:15. In Luke 6:1 it shows that they counted these as weeks leading up to Pentecost. That is why this term as used in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 is prior to Pentecost. Here is where Pentecost follows the "first of sabbaths". Acts 20:16, 1 Cor 16:8. It was a yearly day, not a weekly day.

You have not read the Dead Sea Scrolls, or studied Marcion, or the canon of the Ebionites. Having a discussion where any statement I make is followed by "no it isn't" - will not be productive. So I really cannot discuss this with you.

"How" we got here is not as important as "where" were are now. Christ gave us specific instructions to not have a church hierarchy, church titles, or a paid clergy, yet we do not obey Him. Why?

Why do we see the writings of later men as superior to Christ? Because they tell us what we want to hear.

[JohnHurt]

John are you going to support any of your historical claims?

I will only support that Christ is superior to all later writers.

"History" has been re-written by the winners. Here is an example:

Tyrannius Rufinus translated the Clementine Recognitions from Greek to Latin, made changes to the text, then destroyed all of the Greek manuscripts to censor what the "catholic church" did not want to hear. In the Clementine literature, Simon Magus is Rufinus' code word for "Paul", which Bible scholars will attest. There was a great debate between Peter and Paul about whether the teachings the Apostles received from Christ while He walked this earth were superior to the "revelations" that Simon Magus said that he had of Christ (see Galatians 1 and 2) and Peter and the Apostles rejected Simon Magus over his claims of divine revelation from Christ, just as Christ commanded in Matt 24:26 . The Clementine Literature also discloses that Peter would not eat with the Gentiles because Simon Magus and the Gentiles were eating meat offered to Idols, and Peter refused. This is Peter's answer to Paul's accusation about Peter not eating with the Gentiles in Gal 2.

But this "history" has been re-written by a Catholic censor. It no longer has Paul's name in it. So anyone can easily say it is "bogus" now. So I have no real "history", except what a Bible scholar will support, and that is not much.

All anyone needs is Christ. What did Christ say?

No church hierarchy. Luke 22:25-26
No church titles. Matt 23:8-10
No paid clergy. Matt 10:8

Why is it so hard to believe that we are wrong and Christ is right?

Instead of ignoring Christ and looking at "history" written by fallen men, why don't we try to improve ourselves and conform to what Christ said?

[JohnHurt]

Controversial topic: Polycarp’s epistle should be in the canon. John, what do you think of that?

Here is what Christ said:

Matthew 28:(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Christ never instructed us to teach the doctrines of other men.

No but Christ taught that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things once Christ had returned to the Father. John 14:26. I believe first and foremost our teacher is to be the Holy Spirit who not only teaches us directly and through the written scriptures but also through those who He is using to teach us. It has also been pointed out that many things Jesus said were not recorded in the Scriptures so that says to me that the Holy Spirit would carry on the ministry of teaching us after Jesus left.

Why we don't all have the same understandings on what the Holy Spirit says, to me, that is the bigger issue and personally I believe this has to do with firstly, how we regard Him as our teacher and how we know His Voice above other voices. Jesus also said His sheep know His voice and the voice of another they will not follow. So with all these 'teachers' with varied understandings telling us what God wants of us, do we know His voice telling us the way that we should go or have we replaced His voice with the voices of certain teachers and are not discerning enough of when they are speaking truth and when they are speaking the doctrines of men. And sometimes it will be the interpretations of what was written that Jesus said.

When you use the Matthew 28:19 text if this was to be applied to all believers for all time, then to be obedient, every professing believer should be going to all nations and involved in baptisms as described. And since He was talking directly to the 11 disciples when He spoke this Matthew 28:18-20 text, was this text, 'The Great Commission', meant for all believers ? If so, we are all living in disobedience.

Jesus told His followers that they don't need to worry about what He wants them to do and know as truth because He will send the Holy Spirit to continue on to be their guide. And He did, He sent us the Holy Spirit to not only be with us but to live within us. Even those who have never owned a Bible or have access to one or have limited learning abilities, they too can be filled and guided by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes I think the Bible has been put on such a high pedestal that it has become a hindrance to some of us in being guided by the Spirit. Well, that is another topic.

Let's read it together:

John 14:(26) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:(26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(27) And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

It looks like the "Comforter" will be sent to those that walked with Christ "from the beginning" - to bring all things to their remembrance that Christ said to them. The Comforter is all about bearing witness of Christ, and not some new doctrine.

One thing Christ said stands out to me:

John 16:(7) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

So, the Comforter cannot be here until Christ leaves. And only when Christ comes back will everyone will see Him, but not before that time, as in this passage:

Matthew 24: (24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(25) Behold, I have told you before.
(26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
(27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So according to what Christ said, no one has seen Christ since His Ascension. We, or at least the Apostles, have the Comforter to help them remember what Christ said. If the Comforter is here now, then Christ cannot be here too.

And along with this, according to Matthew 24:26, if anyone claims to have seen Christ in the desert, or in their secret chambers, then we are not to believe them.

Where did Paul see Christ? In the desert. Where did Ananias see Christ? In his secret chambers.

If you are to have the Comforter teaching us all things after Christ leaves, then you can't have Christ showing up to just to Paul at the same time. Something does not add up.

If we are to believe that men can be inspired by the Comforter today, then we must deny that men can be visited in private by Christ.

And you are going to "all nations" when you witness on a forum or other type of media. So that is good.

[Soloist]

You have not read the Dead Sea Scrolls, or studied Marcion, or the canon of the Ebionites. Having a discussion where any statement I make is followed by "no it isn't" - will not be productive. So I really cannot discuss this with you.

I have read a little of the Dead Sea scrolls. The point of the question though which you seem to think is pointless to answer was your claim

The Dead Sea Scrolls were the actual records of the early church, prior to 70 AD

If that was true, it should be easy enough to post a link to something so I can educate myself.

You are arguing that the text I’ve read has been changed, and then are getting upset because I’m asking for sources. Sorry I can’t take your word for it because there’s been several things in this thread you’ve said that I have pulled factual evidence to show that you’re wrong. If you refuse to present evidence it doesn’t change if it’s true or not.
I have questioned before how we know the early church writings were not altered, and as far as I knew the writings of people branded as heretics had been destroyed and we just had writings against them to learn anything.

Generally speaking when someone presents a large conspiracy and then argues it from multiple sources like you have, One by one the legs fall off as their sources fall apart. It’s your call but if you’re going to use historical record to support your case, you can expect it to be challenged when you say exotic things. You can expect it to be disbelieved when you don’t back it up.

[Neto]

Here is what Christ said:

Matthew 28:(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Christ never instructed us to teach the doctrines of other men.

No but Christ taught that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things once Christ had returned to the Father. John 14:26. I believe first and foremost our teacher is to be the Holy Spirit who not only teaches us directly and through the written scriptures but also through those who He is using to teach us. It has also been pointed out that many things Jesus said were not recorded in the Scriptures so that says to me that the Holy Spirit would carry on the ministry of teaching us after Jesus left.

Why we don't all have the same understandings on what the Holy Spirit says, to me, that is the bigger issue and personally I believe this has to do with firstly, how we regard Him as our teacher and how we know His Voice above other voices. Jesus also said His sheep know His voice and the voice of another they will not follow. So with all these 'teachers' with varied understandings telling us what God wants of us, do we know His voice telling us the way that we should go or have we replaced His voice with the voices of certain teachers and are not discerning enough of when they are speaking truth and when they are speaking the doctrines of men. And sometimes it will be the interpretations of what was written that Jesus said.

When you use the Matthew 28:19 text if this was to be applied to all believers for all time, then to be obedient, every professing believer should be going to all nations and involved in baptisms as described. And since He was talking directly to the 11 disciples when He spoke this Matthew 28:18-20 text, was this text, 'The Great Commission', meant for all believers ? If so, we are all living in disobedience.

Jesus told His followers that they don't need to worry about what He wants them to do and know as truth because He will send the Holy Spirit to continue on to be their guide. And He did, He sent us the Holy Spirit to not only be with us but to live within us. Even those who have never owned a Bible or have access to one or have limited learning abilities, they too can be filled and guided by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes I think the Bible has been put on such a high pedestal that it has become a hindrance to some of us in being guided by the Spirit. Well, that is another topic.

Let's read it together:

John 14:(26) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:(26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
(27) And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

It looks like the "Comforter" will be sent to those that walked with Christ "from the beginning" - to bring all things to their remembrance that Christ said to them. The Comforter is all about bearing witness of Christ, and not some new doctrine.

One thing Christ said stands out to me:

John 16:(7) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

So, the Comforter cannot be here until Christ leaves. And only when Christ comes back will everyone will see Him, but not before that time, as in this passage:

Matthew 24: (24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(25) Behold, I have told you before.
(26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
(27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So according to what Christ said, no one has seen Christ since His Ascension. We, or at least the Apostles, have the Comforter to help them remember what Christ said. If the Comforter is here now, then Christ cannot be here too.

And along with this, according to Matthew 24:26, if anyone claims to have seen Christ in the desert, or in their secret chambers, then we are not to believe them.

Where did Paul see Christ? In the desert. Where did Ananias see Christ? In his secret chambers.

If you are to have the Comforter teaching us all things after Christ leaves, then you can't have Christ showing up to just to Paul at the same time. Something does not add up.

If we are to believe that men can be inspired by the Comforter today, then we must deny that men can be visited in private by Christ.

And you are going to "all nations" when you witness on a forum or other type of media. So that is good.

Jesus said that he was going to the Father, and that He would return in the same manner at a later time determined by the Father.
Saul only hear a voice on the Damascas road, and Ananias saw a vision. Later Paul "sees" Jesus a vision. That is not in any way similar to how Jesus said he would return (physically). But my main point here is that if you reject Luke's book of the Acts, then you've discredited Luke as an author and information source, and so you loose the gospel record Luke left as well. You also discredit all of his sources, unless he just misquoted everyone. I fear that you are cutting the foundation from under your feet. Luke (the author, in the Acts) is also the only source for the account of the "Jerusalem Council".

[Soloist]

Tyrannius Rufinus translated the Clementine Recognitions from Greek to Latin, made changes to the text, then destroyed all of the Greek manuscripts to censor what the "catholic church" did not want to hear. In the Clementine literature, Simon Magus is Rufinus' code word for "Paul", which Bible scholars will attest. There was a great debate between Peter and Paul about whether the teachings the Apostles received from Christ while He walked this earth were superior to the "revelations" that Simon Magus said that he had of Christ (see Galatians 1 and 2) and Peter and the Apostles rejected Simon Magus over his claims of divine revelation from Christ, just as Christ commanded in Matt 24:26 . The Clementine Literature also discloses that Peter would not eat with the Gentiles because Simon Magus and the Gentiles were eating meat offered to Idols, and Peter refused. This is Peter's answer to Paul's accusation about Peter not eating with the Gentiles in Gal 2.

But this "history" has been re-written by a Catholic censor. It no longer has Paul's name in it. So anyone can easily say it is "bogus" now. So I have no real "history", except what a Bible scholar will support, and that is not much.

Okay so the Clementine Recognitions I've never read and I don't see it as accepted by many. Clement's letters are a different story. Seems like Rufinus was loose on his translation although of the Recognitions. He did not translate the letters nor did he translate the other early church writings that reference Paul and Simon as separate individuals.
Simon though, was mentioned by Justin as having a statue made of him with the inscription "Simoni Deo Sancto." and also records that he claimed many things that "Paul" writes directly against. So if Paul is Simon, why did he undercut his own teachings and doctrine with his letters? why did Paul teach in contrast to Simon that God created everything? Simon taught their was another greater god then God.

Its very interesting to me that your stance was argued against by Irenaeus in his writings against heresies. These arguments took place long before you or I and every one of your "scriptural based" arguments was discussed and explained by someone far wiser then me.

As Neto points out and the early church writers, Luke was with Paul quite a lot and if Paul was this chief heretic you make him out to be, then the writings of Luke (Acts and Luke) certainly are in question. Read Irenaeus "Against Heresies" which is quite long and almost exhaustively covers all of this.

[Sudsy]

So, bottom line is, everyone that does not obey keeping Saturday as a holy day and not Sunday is breaking one of the 10 Commandments and will end up in hell. So everyone here, except John Hurt is on their way to hell. Actually, all of the early church and those following who met on the first day of the week, if they regarded this as replacing the Sabbath, are hell bound also. Sounds to me like the 'few there be that find' this straight and narrow gate will be a number we can count and not the number Revelation speaks of. I'm not sold yet on 'Hurtism'.

That is not fair.

Sorry John if I mis-represented your belief that Sunday worship people are breaking one of the 10 commandments and therefore will not be saved. Although I currently am not attending a Seventh-day Adventist church, I have quite similar beliefs as they in many areas. I took some tests on my beliefs and the SDA beliefs were closest to mine. The SDA doesn't present Seventh-day worship as a salvation issue.

I should not have referred to your beliefs as 'Hurtism' and I will admit my own could be called 'Sudsism'. There isn't any group I know of that would agree with all my beliefs and my beliefs are a 'work-in-progress'.

Sometimes the flesh responds in my posts. Hopefully, this will get fewer.

[Nomad]

This is just a few questions out of curiosity, not debate. But how far or how much of the Sabbath do you believe we must hold to? Would the Sabbath year and Jubilee year fit in as well? Also, you would still believe the dietary laws would still apply if I'm hearing you right? And, what do you believe has become of the sacrificial Laws?

Nomad,

Unlike a lot of people, I believe Christ when He said:

Matthew 5:(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So I have to make my understanding match Christ, not the other way around. Not one jot or tittle.

I keep the weekly Sabbath on the 7th Day, and I do my best about the yearly sabbaths of Leviticus 23. Passover represents Christ's Sacrifice, the Wave Offering on the first day after the sabbath represents Christ as the first fruits, when He said "touch me not". Counting 7 weeks, plus one equals 50 days to Pentecost which was the establishment of the church. The Fall feast days deal with the trumpet of the Lord announcing His Return, that He will tabernacle with us, and the Last Great Day is the Judgment. The Day of Atonement is the day Christ was born into this world, like the scapegoat.

The Sabbath Year and Jubilee would fit in a society that follows God's Laws, they are impossible at the personal level.

But imagine if every 7 years, all debts were forgiven, the year of release. That would destroy the banking system that has made everyone into debt slaves.

On the 50th year, the land, or "means of production", was to be divided up equally. Imagine if the stocks of all companies and their means of production was equally divided among the people every 50th year. There would be no poor, at least for a year or so.

With these two principles in place, then a Sabbath Year could be followed as well. To take one year off every 7 years, that is a 14% reduction in work. Without the burdens of house debt, car debt, credit card debt, government debt, 14% would not be an obstacle.

Everyone will say this is impossible, but we should consider as followers of Christ the other side, namely, "how could it work"? What would we need to do?

We already have the answer. For example in a hospital, it cannot shut down one day a week and everyone goes home and doesn't work. Same for the electrical grid, police, fire, etc.

One of my friends is a doctor that keeps the 7th day Sabbath, and works at a hospital on Sunday. The other doctors that keep a Sunday Sabbath appreciate him, and this works out for everyone.

This is like the Passover that was kept a month later for someone on a journey or unclean. Numbers 9:6-12, 2 Chron 30:2-4. It is not as important that you keep the exact day, but that you keep it as best that you can. Sunday Sabbath is not the best that we can do, but for some people, it is, and I am not their judge. And for some situations, this is a solution.

You may have to make some exceptions in keeping the Sabbath, like how Joshua marched around Jericho 7 days, one of which was a Sabbath.

What you will find in the church is a lot of people that look for these "exceptions" and say that it cannot possibly work, and then throw out the idea entirely - because they want to be like everyone else and not follow what Christ said.

Yes, the Dietary Laws of Leviticus 11 are still in effect. Peter quotes Leviticus 11:44 in 1st Peter 1:16 that we should keep the dietary law to be holy before God in our manner of living.

If Christ said "not one jot or tittle", then also the Sacrificial Laws are still in effect.

And that the Sacrificial Law is still in effect is the point made in Hebrews 9, that Christ entered the Tabernacle not made with hands, and offered Himself for sin, as a superior sacrifice to the blood of bulls and goats. He did not need to offer Himself as a sacrifice repeatedly from the foundation of the world, but once and for all, for all time.

His Sacrifice is the cure for our sin today. So if Christ is still saving us from sin, then the Sacrificial Law is still in effect. Hebrews 9:24-28.

If there is no sacrificial law, if that was abolished, then Christ did not need to die. Christ did not abolish the Sacrificial Law, He became the Sacrifice and High Priest.

Thanks for your question. No one will answer my question.

My question is, "By whose authority has the Law been abolished?' It wasn't Christ.

John 5(43) I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

My answer to your question of the Law being abolished would be that it wasn't. It was fulfilled by Christ and the inscribed on our hearts via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by faith and enables/ empowers us to do His will. Since its impossible for man to keep the Law by his own will power, as we all are sinners, Jesus completed the actions of the Law and fulfilled all the types and shadows which no man could possibly fulfill. The idea that there is no Law is antinomian...we do have a Law that isn't written on tables of stone but is rather written on our hearts. You said it yourself: you "try" to keep the 7yr sabbath and Jubilee. By your own word its impossible for you to do it to its fulness.

Couple other things. I think the Law of Sinai was given to 1 people group: Israel. If the nations wanted to be partakers in fellowship with God, they had to eschew all prior culture, get circumcised, and follow the Law like a Israelite. They essentially had to "become" a Hebrew. But through the New Covenant, we have the liberty attained by Christ who came and fulfilled the Law and now the nations can be partakers of the promises by faith and the indwelling Spirit. We can stay in the culture and ethnicity we were born into without becoming a Hebrew. There is a change in our hearts which moves into our actions rather than a requirement to understand the Law in writing. God always wanted the heart to be changed but Israel fell into trap many of us do (at least I have...), of mistaking our holiness for our righteousness. Righteousness deals with our hearts and is imputed and is acquired only by faith. Whereas holiness is our walk as we humble ourselves to the commands of the Holy Spirit via Jesus Christ rather than our own flesh. Others flip it around and tend to mistake righteousness for holiness and think that holiness doesn't matter and we can live on as we are in sin while proclaiming ourselves saved. Neither view is biblical. We can't have holiness without righteousness and vice versa.

The Law dealt with restoration of the sinner through the animal sacrifice and blood atonement so that they could purify the flesh. But it did nothing to purify the conscience. It didn't offer a clear conscience before God and the sin remained on the record...similar to a court of Law today. If I get pinched for speeding, I go through a restoration process by paying a fine and perhaps going to court. But it remains on my record after the fact that I have broke the Law speeding. Jesus takes the sin of the conscience and purifies it via His blood sacrifice once and for all.

Finally, I believe since the Law was originally meant to be temporary until the "Seed" (singular) that should come fulfilled it. That "Seed" is Jesus Christ as we are shown by Paul in Ga 3. But I dont think you will agree with that, of course, since Paul's writings don't seem to be scripture to you...

The Law was a shadow that was to pass away when the perfect Seed (Jesus Christ) came.
The Law defined sin.
The Law was given to a specific ethnic group: Israel.
The Law cleansed the flesh but not the conscience.
We have the Law of Christ today, written on our hearts.

I have 1 more question: if the sacrificial system changed when Jesus came. Yet, all the other aspects of the Law didn't...why not? What hermeneutical code should I use to know what things in the Law are changed after Christ and what things remain the same?

[Neto]

....
Finally, I believe since the Law was originally meant to be temporary until the "Seed" (singular) that should come fulfilled it. That "Seed" is Jesus Christ as we are shown by Paul in Ga 3. But I don't think you will agree with that, of course, since Paul's writings don't seem to be scripture to you...
....

This is a place where, as a Bible translator, I have a sort of "problem" with Paul (Galatians). In Gal.3:16 Paul quotes Gen. 17:8. He uses a grammatical oddity to make his point. That is, the word 'seed' is not marked for quantity - both singular and plural take the same form, but the MEANING in Genesis is clearly plural (or singular in the sense of the nation that came out of Abraham, but NOT singular in the sense of referring to a single individual). (NASB, for example, translates it as "descendants", plural, as is the clear intent of the passage as Moses recorded the words of God.)

I understand Paul's point, and he is not the only Scripture writer who takes this sort of "liberty" with the text. I said "problem" (in quotes) above because it creates a difficulty for the translator who is working in any language that does not have this same grammatical oddity. Banawa (Amaazon, Medio-Purus region) does not. I just looked at how I handled that verse, and let's just say that it got really long, because in the technical sense, Paul misquotes the Genesis text, and his whole point is lost if both texts are accurately translated (in the grammatical sense). He is making an application of the text, (in my understanding, possibly based on an idea that the grammatical oddity of Hebrew was guided by God so as to create this possible point). (I have heard sermons where the preacher does something similar, and I confess that I find it difficult to extend the same "forgiveness" to them as I do to the Scripture writers. However, the writers of the past, Menno Simons would be one example, do the same sort of thing, and this "freeness" with the text is more common in cultures where 'global thinking' is used, as opposed to "Greek thought" in formation of an "argument".) So my "problem" with Paul here is confined to the difficulty faced by the translator, when working in a language that doesn't have this same grammatical oddity. It is not an argument against Paul; In that sense my comments here are out of place. I just feel a necessity to acknowledge that this problem does exist in the Galatians text.

[Nomad]

....
Finally, I believe since the Law was originally meant to be temporary until the "Seed" (singular) that should come fulfilled it. That "Seed" is Jesus Christ as we are shown by Paul in Ga 3. But I don't think you will agree with that, of course, since Paul's writings don't seem to be scripture to you...
....

This is a place where, as a Bible translator, I have a sort of "problem" with Paul (Galatians). In Gal.3:16 Paul quotes Gen. 17:8. He uses a grammatical oddity to make his point. That is, the word 'seed' is not marked for quantity - both singular and plural take the same form, but the MEANING in Genesis is clearly plural (or singular in the sense of the nation that came out of Abraham, but NOT singular in the sense of referring to a single individual). (NASB, for example, translates it as "descendants", plural, as is the clear intent of the passage as Moses recorded the words of God.)

I understand Paul's point, and he is not the only Scripture writer who takes this sort of "liberty" with the text. I said "problem" (in quotes) above because it creates a difficulty for the translator who is working in any language that does not have this same grammatical oddity. Banawa (Amaazon, Medio-Purus region) does not. I just looked at how I handled that verse, and let's just say that it got really long, because in the technical sense, Paul misquotes the Genesis text, and his whole point is lost if both texts are accurately translated (in the grammatical sense). He is making an application of the text, (in my understanding, possibly based on an idea that the grammatical oddity of Hebrew was guided by God so as to create this possible point). (I have heard sermons where the preacher does something similar, and I confess that I find it difficult to extend the same "forgiveness" to them as I do to the Scripture writers. However, the writers of the past, Menno Simons would be one example, do the same sort of thing, and this "freeness" with the text is more common in cultures where 'global thinking' is used, as opposed to "Greek thought" in formation of an "argument".) So my "problem" with Paul here is confined to the difficulty faced by the translator, when working in a language that doesn't have this same grammatical oddity. It is not an argument against Paul; In that sense my comments here are out of place. I just feel a necessity to acknowledge that this problem does exist in the Galatians text.

I would recommend the book "the Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers" by Abner Chou or "The Old in The New" by Michael Vlach. Chou shows how the word "seed" has its origin in Genesis 3:15 where it is used singular and is messianic in nature. The prophets would have known this and God promises Abraham he would make the patriarch into a great nation with numerous descendants (Gen 12:2). This promise also included the ultimate offspring who would make all of this possible: Christ (Gen 22:18). The writer in Genesis 22:18 uses nouns and verbs in the singular to make the precise point.

Paul's reading of seed in Ga 3:16 is sensitive to Moses (Genesis author) intent. The apostle does not negate the plurality of seed by this statement. He acknowledges the promise entails numerous descendants elsewhere (Rom 4:18). Nevertheless, the apostle is aware of another important strand of thought in the Genesis writer's writings about the messianic Seed. That is picked up by the prophets and maintained by Paul. All of this demonstrates how carefully the apostle read the OT, with precision down to the word.