tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40250219062002506.post3014217326922671455..comments2023-12-03T16:49:02.080+08:00Comments on THE RAMBLER: The ανωθεν problemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40250219062002506.post-62895670129011398822014-04-08T09:09:51.064+08:002014-04-08T09:09:51.064+08:00The two meanings are as far apart as far can be. ...The two meanings are as far apart as far can be. "From above" and "again" are as different as chalk and cheese. The Gospel was written in Koine Greek or so most scholars will agree. For the meaning of a word to be intentionally double, the word must be able to bear both meanings and that is precisely why I say Jesus couldn't have said that since he spoke Aramaic. The word can only bear both meanings in Koine Greek.TLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13777216835117522284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40250219062002506.post-38109584203323079412014-04-08T09:06:20.797+08:002014-04-08T09:06:20.797+08:00Hi Rob, I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier...Hi Rob, I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. I had meant to but I forgot about it. Thanks for your comment. If Jesus had spoken in Greek, you can be sure the writer of St John would have made a big show of it in his Gospel. Any simple reading of the Gospels will reveal to the reader how anxious the Evangelists were in highlighting anything unusual Jesus could do. If he had spoken in Greek, you can be sure there would have been a huge write-up on this linguistic miracle that our Lord performed.TLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13777216835117522284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40250219062002506.post-54778058258312817952014-04-08T02:15:29.334+08:002014-04-08T02:15:29.334+08:00For me the two meanings of the one word are not th...For me the two meanings of the one word are not that far apart... some scholars would argue this or that way. A third view - maybe the meaning was intentionally double... to actually mean both things at once. The 2 meaning are not that far apartBenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410389797264161211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40250219062002506.post-22755156480905255022012-12-19T11:30:16.929+08:002012-12-19T11:30:16.929+08:00What you say is 'obvious' in your last par...What you say is 'obvious' in your last paragraph is, I think, part of the problem. You are assuming (perhaps with good reason, but assuming nonetheless ) that the conversation between the Son of God (who could speak any language He wants) and an educated leader of the Jewish People (who certainly could have known Greek) 'HAD' to be in Aramaic. Secondly, you assume the write of John 'knew no Aramaic'. So you conclude the only thing you can with those two assumed to be facts. What if, like Jesus tends to do all throughout the gospels, He was intentionally being cryptic? What if he really did answer Nicodemus in greek to confuse him? So he would have to seek out the meaning to be saved? OR take the whole 'born again' as a misunderstanding of MODERN scholars and think just MAYBE we (living 2000 years later) have misread the passage and not that the writer (an eye witness to the events - if you believe his testimony) wrote the conversation down in error.<br /><br />This one does NOT have to be a faith shaking problem. The word play on ανωθεν may be our own modern creation.<br /><br />just a thought.<br /><br />Rob bro.jedi@hotmail.com<br />Robert Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11235122263514426748noreply@blogger.com