View Single Post
Old 01-20-2012, 11:06 PM   #55
ToGodAlone
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 95
Default Re: The LRC Lexicon — Common Phrases

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
And it is baloney to suggest that everything can be distilled down to just dispensing. Down to something so small and simple that you don't need to worry about all those pesky commandments. Oh, I forgot, commandments are all part of the law, and it was abolished. But I still don't see where it is that this claim is true. Where it is that doing the requirements of commandment is eliminated. If it is true, then what was Jesus telling the disciples to teach the future believers to obey when he spoke to them right at the end of Matthew? Surely "all that I have commanded" was not just to believe in Jesus and get more dispensing.
The law was never abolished, per say. Rather, it was fulfilled. Christ himself says so. So you're absolutely right, the claim is false. It's true in every translation...even the Recovery version.

Some examples just because I feel it's an important thing to point out against this notion of an abolished law and only dispensing stuff...

NIV
Quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
NLT
Quote:
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
ESV
Quote:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
KJV
Quote:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
RCV
Quote:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
Thus if WL actually did teach that the law was abolished, he's not only contradicting the Bible, but his own version of it, which from what I gather has several parts translated differently to suit his own definitions and ideas. Then again, his footnotes on the verse confuses the very meaning of what is explicitly said (based on my reading it just now) in the verse. But maybe that's just poor reading on my part...
ToGodAlone is offline   Reply With Quote