What is you dictionary source for that statement?
The solution is fairly simple. In James 1:13, “for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”
The context in James is tempting to do evil. But in Gen 22:1 the context is God tempting Abraham to please God. Testing is an inferior word because makes no connection with love.
You need to know the attributes of God. God is asking for communion.
Make yourself familiar with the Derivative Copyright Law and its consequences to word choices if the writers of the translation want to sell their translation. “For the love of money…”
Any etymological dictionary. Tempt comes from the Latin temptare.
Here we will be at an impasse. The KJV translators used “tempt” and not “test”. In fact, neither “test” nor “tested” appear in the KJV
Other translations have used test. I would say that makes it more likely that the KJV meant test, which was a meaning for tempt at that time and which is the meaning for the Latin temptare. Also, since English got most of its Latin based words indirectly via French, the French word tempter meant to test. This is also related to the Italian word tentare.
And, when you think about what was happening in that passage, it does seem like God was testing Abraham more than tempting him. He didn’t tempt Abraham into killing his son, He ordered him to kill his son.
Because test meant something different back then. Again, just look up the Latin word test comes from.
You just do not agree with the method I use for interpreting the Bible. I am okay with that. One of the most important rules is to allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. I do not use a dictionary to find the meaning, nor do I use etymology in search of a words origin. I believe the Bible will lead me to the answer.
When you really give Genesis chapter 22 much thought, if you love God and believe God loves you (Abraham in this case), you will realize that God is tempting Abraham to express his love. A major tip off is that the temptation came for God and not the LORD. (I am not going to expect you to understand that distinction and will not spend time explaining this nuance to you)
Once again “test” is not in the Bible. I do not care what that word means!
Abraham was not stupid. God and Abraham had a covenant that God would make him a great nation. How is that going to happen if God kills Abraham’s only heir? Abraham knew that God would not take his son from him. Abraham trusted God to keep His covenant. Open up your heart and see the love of God.
You can read Hebrew? And how would one translate without taking into account etymology? Given how a language can change over time, you need to think about these things. It’s not what a word means now, but what it meant when it was written.
That’s exactly how a learned person and scholar should think.
You might want to read Romans 11:34.
You make the classic mistake of the fundamentalist. You think that anyone who doesn’t believe your interpretation of scripture must therefore not believe at all. Convictions are more dangerous foes to truth than lies.
1 Like
No need to read Hebrew. I can read English.
I am a student of the Bible, not a learned person or scholar
Your Romans 11:34 is a ridiculous argument. Knowing that God would honor His covenant does not necessitate knowing the mind of God.
I don’t know how to say this any more different ways than I already have: I don’t care if you agree with my interpretation of any Bible passage. God knows your heart. I don’t have an opinion. I don’t know you. And if I did know you, I still would never know your heart.
Your comment above is pure made up garbage. I never made the accusation you state.
All I did was defend my belief. I didn’t question your faith or what you believe. That said, I believe there is much more you could learn from the Bible.
I’m a believer, but I’ve never seen someone try to defend the validity of the Bible while full-on admitting they have no idea what the original meaning of the words meant, they just decided to accept a random translation. ESPECIALLY the KJV.
Well, you can mark that off your list.
And I can mark one off my list. You are the only person I had ever known to call the KJV a random translation. BTW, it was known as the Authorized Version.
Authorized by GOD? Is that what you are saying?
Did I say that? Reread the sentence.
Have tagged in for @zecarlo ?
So authorized by whom exactly? And @zecarlo is exposing you enough on his own. I’ve just never heard someone admit their ignorance in DEFENSE of the Bible.
1 Like
I have been taught to allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. I might look up a word in the 1828 dictionary. But those are words of men.
I believe that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. If that seems crazy to you, I can understand because you believe it is a “random” translation
I take an extreme logical approach when studying the Bible. Do know that I do not read the Bible. I use Strong’s Concordance to search verses that use the same word.
I don’t wish to convince you of anything. If you enjoy attacking my beliefs, have at it. I can take it.
All this means is that the Catholic Church approved it.
Saying that the KJV is more right than any other modern English translation is automatically a fallacy (based on pure linguistics).
I just disagree.
What Hebrew text is the inerrant word of God?
Which Greek manuscripts are the inerrant word of God?
If the premise don’t hold, any conclusions are worthless.
None are completely inerrant likely.
I doubt the originals survive in any meaningful form.
Therefore pegging yourself to only one translation does a disservice to one’s faith and tends to alienate those who you would want to Bring into the faith.
1 Like
Maybe not when it can be demonstrated that a valid interpretation can only be honestly portrayed in the KJV. (Example: The parallel with the perceived sacrifice of Isaac and the how the cross travelled that Jesus was crucified. BTW, Isaac is a type of Christ)
All new translations are constrained by the Derivative Copyright Law.