It matters not a hill of beans what we assume, decide, *know* but what matters is what God through the apostles....SAID. It matters nothing to me what some on this list think about my credibility. What matters is what the scriptures SAY. Some have a way of trying to intimidate others by putting them down....I was taught as a child those who do that are trying to build themselves up. So be it~

I am posting many translations and a few commmentaries on the above scripture. Tradition has taken that scripture and built a religious system upon it. Some just might remove their institutional blinders and look at this scripture as it is written. I recommend you keep this for future study.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

TRANSLATIONS/VERSIONS:

Wycliffe: [1382, translated from Latin Vulgate; Purvey revision of 1388] Ech of you kepe at hym rilf, kepinge that that plerith to hi; that whane Y come the gaderingis be not maad. The Holy Bible, made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his followers; edited by Josiah Forshall and Fredric Madden, Vol. IV: Ech of you kepe, or leye vp, at hym silf, kepinge that that _schal plese to him, that not whanne I schal come, thanne be maad collectis.

Tyndale: [1525, translated from Greek] In some saboth daye (Vpon some sondaye [1534 edition]) let every one of you put a syde at home and laye vp what soever he thinketh mete, that ther be no gaderinges when I come.

Geneva Bible: [1560; NT by William Whittingham, 1557] Euerie firrt day of the weke, let euerie one of you put aride by him relf, and laye vp as God hat he prorpered him, that the there be no gatherings when I come.

note: Vpon the firrt day of the weke which y Scripture calleth the Lords day, others Soday, they accurtomed not one I y iny Church but at home alro accordingto euery mas zeale, to lay vp rome piece of money towards y relief of the poore brethre

Geneva Bible: [1602] Euerya firrt day of the weeke, let euery one of you put aride by himrelfe, and lay vp as God hathb prorpered him, that then there be no gatherings when I come.

a Which in times part was called Sunday, but now is called the Lord's day b That euery man bertow according to the abilitie that God hath blerred him with

KJV: [1611, first edition] ...let euery one of you lay by him in store [revision of the Bishops Bible, 5 October 1568, a revision of the Great Bible. April 1539, a revision of the Matthew Bible, 1537, comprised of Tyndale's, December 1525, and Coverdale's, 1535, translations} KJV: [contemporary edition, from a series of revisions of the 1611 first edition] ...let every one of you lay by him in store

Conybeare: [1852] ...let each of you set apart whatever his gains may enable him to spare

Young's: [1862] ...on every first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him, treasuring up whatever he may have prospered,

Alford: [1868] ....let each of you lay up at home in store

Kelly, William: [ ] ...let each of you put by him, storing up whatever he may have prospered

KJVR: [1881] ...let each of you lay by him in store

Darby Bible Version: [1890, J. N. Darby ] ... let each of you put by at home, laying up ...

ASV: [1900] ...let each of you lay by him in store

20th Century: [1900] ...each of you should put by

Moffatt: [1922] ...let each of you put aside

Goodspeed: [1923] ...each of you is to put aside and store up

Moffatt: [1934] ...let each of you put aside a sum from his weekly gains

Williams: [1937] ...each of you must put aside and store up

Weymouth: [1943] ...let each of you put by and keep

Knox: [1944] ...each of you should put aside ... and save it up

RSV: [1946] ...each of you is to put something aside and store it up

Basic English Bible: [1949] ...let every one of you put by him in store ... so that it may not be necessary to get money together when I come.

New World: [1950] ...let each of you at his own home set ... aside in store

Phillips: [1958] ...let everyone put ... by him

Wuest: [1958] ...let each one of you have the habit of putting aside at home .., accumulating and keeping it in reserve,

NASB: [1960] ...let each of you 1put aside and save 1Lit., put by himself NEB: [1961] ...each of you is to put aside and keep by him

The Dartmouth Bible: [1961] ...let every one of you lay by him in store,

Confraternity: [1963] ...let each of you put aside at home and lay up

The Jerusalem Bible: [1966] ...each of you must put aside what he can afford

TEV: [1966] ...each of you must put aside ... and save it up

Living Bible: [1967] ...each of you should put aside

Barrett, C.K.: [1968] On the first day of each week let each of you set aside for himself and save up...

The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English: [1945, rev. 1969] ...let each of you set aside ... so that there may be no collection when I arrive.

King James II: [1970] On the first day of the week, let each of you store up whatever he has prospered in,

New American: [1970] ...everyone should put aside whatever he has been able to save

NIV: [1973] ...each of you should set aside .., saving it up

Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version": [1974] Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store,

Hermeneia: [1975] On the first day of the week let each of you put aside and store up whatever he can spare,

The Anchor Bible: [1976] ...let each of you put aside at home savings ...so that there may be no collections at the time I come. (note: ...Jews were forbidden to handle money on the Sabbath; ...There is no mention of a worship service in this instance.)

The New Testament, A New Easy-to-Read Version: [1978] English Version for Deaf: [1978] ...each one of you should save ... You should put this money in a special place and keep it there. Then you will not have to gather your money after I come.

NKJV: [1979] ...let each of you lay ... aside, storing up

The Simple English Bible: [1980] ...each one of you must store something aside, saving up from what you have profited. There should be no special collections after I have come.

Reader's Digest Bible: [1982] ...each of you is to put something aside and store it up

New Century Version: [1984] ...each of you should put aside ...You should save it up, so that you will not have to collect money after I come.

The Original New Testament: [1985] ...let each of you put by savings .., so that collections do not have to be made when I come.

McCord's New Testament Translation: [1988] ....every Sunday, let each one of you lay aside by himself, if he earns anything, and put it in the treasury; so that there will be no collections when I come.

God's New Covenant: [1989, H. W. Cassirer] ...On the first day of the week, each one of you should put a certain amount aside, ... so that no collecting should be going on at the time of my visit.

The Christian Bible: [1991] ...On [Saturday evening] the first day after every Sabbath Day each of you must be continually laying something aside at home from whatever each prospers, and must be continually storing it up, so that there is no need for each to be making collections when I come!

New Testament Commentary: [1993, Kistemaker, Simon J.] On the first day of the week, let each of you put aside something and store it up ....

Cambridge Greek Testament: [ ] ... at home. Not, as is generally supported, in the assembly.

{re. "no collections ... when I come"; Paul's `time urgency?} NASB: I Cor. 16:3?7 And when I arrive, whomsoever you may approve, I shall send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me. But I shall come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; and perhaps I shall stay with you, or even spend the winter, that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; For I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. (emphasis mine, rwb)

LEXICONS/DICTIONARIES:

A Greek?English Lexicon, Lidell & Scott: [1843] at his own house

The Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, Wigram: [1852] with one's self, at home ... to heap up, accumulate The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, H. K. Moulton: [1978] (no change from 1852 Wigram original)

Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Young: [1879] to treasure up alongside of

A Greek?English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer: [1886] by him, at his home

Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent: [1887] lit: put by himself treasuring Put by at home. (see Expositor, Dean Plumpton, "St. Paul as a Man of Business") systematic weekly saving greater than through collections made once for all on his arrival

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel: [1933] setting aside at home

A Greek?English Lexicon of the New Testament, Bauer/Arndt & Gingrich [1936] each one at home

Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Vine: [1940] (Christians laying money in store) ? let him put; treasuring, storing, laying by

Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. G. R. Berry: [ ] at home

COMMENTARIES:

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Poole {associates}: [1685] ...he directeth that they should everyone lay by him something, ... but having it ready when it should be called for: this he calls a treasuring (so it is in the Greek); ... He would have no gatherings when he came, ... but when he came it might be in readiness to be presently sent away.

An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, Henry {Simon Browne}: [circa 1700] Every one was to lay by in store, have a treasury, or fund, with himself, for this purpose. ... By this means they will be ready to every good work as the opportunity offers; .... They were to lay by from week to week, and not bring in to the common treasury, that by this means their contributions might be easy to themselves, and yet grow into a fund for the relief of their brethren.

Olshausen, H.: [1830 ?40] Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul's intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.

New Testament for English Readers, Alford: [1868] ...let each of you lay up at home whatsoever he may by prosperity have acquired

Commentary on the New Testament, Meyer: [1869] ...cannot refer to the laying down of money in the assembly (Estius, Bengal, Mosheim, al.); let him lay up in store at home whatever he succeeds in.

A Commentary, Jamieson?Fausset?Brown {Fausset/I Cor.}: [1869] "lay by him" ? though there be not a weekly public collection, each is privately to set apart ... for the Lord's cause. The Lord's day, reminding us of His love to us, is the best day for contributing through love to Him. "that there be no gathering when I come" ? that they may not then have to be made, when our time ought to be employed in directly spiritual things. When once for all, not so much is given. But when each lays by something every Lord's day, more is collected.

The Holy Bible ... with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary...,{Canon Evans/I Cor.} [1871?1881]; reprinted as: The Bible Commentary, F. C. Cook: [1981] Rather, `storing up whatever he may prosper in, that when I come no gatherings may then take place: for then will be the time, not for collecting, but for producing the sum of what has been week by week hoarded at home from profits in trade.

A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Edwards: [1885] ??? _???_, "at his own house." Cf. Herodot. VI. 86, ?????? ???? ??. The act. ????v?? also occurs in this sense of depositing money. ?????????v, "storing," that is adding somewhat to the amount of his contribution. The Apostle does not enjoin a public collection in the Church (as Estius, Hodge, etc., suppose), ... In the time of Tertullian (Apol. 39) the money intended for the poor was laid aside once a month. _v? ?_ ?.?.?. The motive usually assigned for the Apostle's wish not to have collections after his arrival is his anxiety to devote the time of his stay at Corinth to the more important duty of spiritual edification. This is hardly satisfactory, as he expected to tarry awhile, if not also to winter, at Corinth, which would afford ample time. Perhaps he wished by not even collecting the money himself, no less than by appointing members of the Church to convey the gift to Jerusalem, to obviate the possibility of his being charged with misappropiating it. {emphasis mine, RWB}

Commentary on First Corinthians, Frederic Godet: [1889] The words: by him, denote an act done by each in his own house, and not as some have thought, a gift bestowed in church and known to the giver only.?? ...such successive deposits, little as they may be, gradually become a respectable sum, a treasure.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Dods: [1889] It is expressly said that each was to lay `by him, that is not in a public fund, but at home in his own purse.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, Nicoll: [circa 1900] ...each of you by himself (= at home) lay up, making a store (of it), ..."making a treasure" describes each householder ...till at the end the accumulated store should be paid over. ...would avoid the unseemliness and the difficulty of raising the money suddenly, at the last moment;

Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson: [1931] Lay by him in store .... By himself, in his home. Treasuring it (cf. Matt 6:19f ....). Have the habit of doing it, ....

The Interpretation of I & II Corinthians, Lenski: [1937] ...while the Christians were to retain their gifts at home until such a time as they should be called for. ... Each member is to deposit with himself each Sunday the amount of his gift for that week and preserve it as a store or treasure, ... Each member is to keep the growing amount `by him, in his own home, and is not to deposit it with the church at once.

The Pulpit Commentary, {F. W. Farrar/I Cor.} [1950] "Upon the first day of the week." ? This verse can hardly be said to imply any religious observance of the Sunday, which rests rather on Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10; John 20:19, 26; "Lay by him in store." ? The greek phrase implies that the laying up was done at home, but when the money was accumulated, it was doubtless (assuming? nib) brought to the assembly and handed over to the presbyters. {emphasis mine, rwb}

The Interpreter's Bible, Craig: [1953] He does not specifically say that there was a community meeting on this day. Something might be put aside at home ...But since at the time of Justin (circa 140) contributions were received at the meetings on the first day of the week, it is probable that at Corinth they were brought each week at this time. {emphasis mine, rwb}

The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Stonehouse/Bruce, {F. W. Grosheide/I Cor.}: [1953]

The reference is not to the church services but to a personal assignment which everyone had to perform. But the fact that Paul speaks of the first day of the week and calls that the day for the collection implies (assuming? nb) that Sunday was destined for the special service of the Lord. Paul trusts the Corinthians: he does not ask them to hand in their collection on a weekly basis, they are allowed to keep the collected money and thus little by little a sufficient amount will be saved up. Everybody is to give what he is able to give. The giving must be voluntary (I Cor. 8:11, 12), and the church is permitted to fix the amount of its contribution itself. The main point is that there will be a fair amount when Paul arrives in Corinth. ... he only asks the Corinthians save the money until he arrives but he does not stipulate that the money shall be handed to him. The church may choose trustworthy men to take the money to Jerusalem. {Gordon D. Fee/I Cor.}: [1987] Elsewhere Paul speaks of this collection in terms that are full of theological content: ...and "divine service."... This is particularly true of the first two phrases, on the first day of every week20 and (literally) let each one by himself.21 Some have argued that "by himself" means "let him take to himself what he means to give";22 in other words, each is to bring to the assembly what he or she has determined "privately" to give. But there is very little linguistic warrant for such a suggestion, not to mention that the participle translated "saving it up"23 implies that "each person" is to store up what is set aside until the designated time. The phrase "by himself" almost certainly means "at home."... ...Thus, even though they were not necessarily to bring their gift to the assembly on this day, it was the fact that this day marked for them the specifically Christian day in their week that probably ( assumbing? nb) made it convenient for Paul to note it as the time to remember the poor among the brothers and sisters in Jerusalem. ...The purpose of this arrangement is simple: "so that when I come no collections will have to be made." Although he does not say as much, such a plan will also ensure a greater gift than a single collection at the time of his arrival. His concern, therefore, seems to be in part that by their weekly setting aside from their "success" of that week, there will be a sum worth the effort of sending people all the way to Jerusalem, which is the matter he speaks to next. ...many think there is a link between this word and an actual collection taken during the service of worship. But this is extremely doubtful, especially in light of the very private nature of the setting aside of the money in v. 2. 20This is the proper understanding of the GK. ???? as distrubutive. 21Gk. ??? ????_. See the discussion in BAGD, ?????.1b?; and ?????? 1g.

22Cf. Hodge, 364, whose words these are; cf. Morris, 238; Mare, 293; Gromacki, 200. But this assumes (assumes?? nb) a contemporary picture of the church, including church officials, regular meetings, and a building. 23Gk. ????????? (= storing something up as a treasure); this word in particular assumes the accumulation of many smaller amounts.{emphasis mine, rwb}

all about CHRISTIAN GIVING, John R. Rice: [1954] This scripture does not say that the Christian was to put the money in the church treasury. He himself was to store it until Paul should come and take the money for the saints at Jerusalem! ...They do not belong to the preacher; they do not belong to the church; they do not belong to the deacons; they do not belong to the church treasury or to the denominational secretary. ...Each Christian is to decide where the gifts are to go. ...Every individual Christian simply, on the first day of the week, laid by him in storage the money that would be given to the Lord. Then each one could decide how much of his giving should go to the support of the local church ministry, how much should go to the poor saints at Jerusalem, how much should be given to poor people otherwise, or to some other preacher, perhaps Apollos or Peter. ...No we give a clear, emphatic command of God, that the Christian, if necessary, is to by-pass the church treasury to give to the preacher or teacher whose ministry blesses him. ...Gal. 6:6 ...This shows clearly that a Christian ought not to turn over to anybody else the problem of deciding what is God's will for God's money, put in the hands of this Christian. Christians cannot shirk that obligation but must obey God's command and must share material things with those who have been blessed of God in sharing spiritual things with the Christians. ...They began to teach it because it was a convenient way to raise money, and to try to increase the local church income, including their own salaries.

Money and the Church, L. P. Powell: [1962] At first, no evidence is given of any central controlling authority. ...Prior to Paul's directives in First and Second Corinthians there was probably no permanent financial organization. ... Paul ignored any common treasury, directing each keep his own money.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, C. K. Barrett, Black's New Testament Commentary: [1968] (translation): On the first day of each week let each one of you set aside for himself and save up whatever profit he makes, that collections may not be taking place when I come. (comment): of each week (that is on Sunday; it is not mentioned here as a day when Christians meet for worship, but cf. Rev. i. 10) let each one of you set aside for himself (not, contribute to a church collection--contrast Justin, Apology i. 67; Paul may have wished to avoid the possibility of accucations with regard to misappropriation, and perhaps to avoid misappropriation itself) and save up whatever profit he makes (taking the verb as present subjunctive, ?_o?"???--so M. i. 54; ii. 191, 200; at Rom. i. 10 it is used more generally , but its meaning here must be financial), that collections may not be taking place when I come. Paul evidently hoped that when he reached Corinth each member waould have a prepared sum ready to pay into a central fund.

Hermeneia, 1 Corinthians, Conzelmann (translated from German): [1969] Paul's arrangement is informative in regard to the state of organization, or nonorganization, in his communities at that time: there is obviously as yet no organized system of finance. Not even a collection at the service of worship is envisaged, if each is to "lay by him in store" his own contribution. ... Paul abides by the Jewish calendar, with one modification; even if the collection is not made during the community meeting, it may be concluded (may be?? nb) from this statement of date that the Sunday is already the day of meeting. Why this day was chosen, there is no knowing. (Amen! nib)

The Anchor Bible, Orr & Walther: [1976] There is no mention of a worship service in this instance. ... It seems this is to be done on a family basis and the funds kept at home.

Paul's Idea of Community, Robert J. Banks: [1979, rev. 1994] ... (I Cor 16:2). But this refers to an individual rather than communal action, as the words "and store it up" indicate, and so does not necessarily allude to a seekly gathering. ... Paul's collection has a specific basis, ... is gathered in individual homes, ...

The Rice Reference Bible, J. R. Rice: [1981] He should lay that "by him in store". Some versions of the Bible say "at home". The Corinthians were taught to set aside that part for God, so that when Paul the apostle came, everyone would have his gift ready to bring. Notice this was raising money for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Nothing was said about the local church budget, though people surely supported their pastors and the poor.

Abingdon: [ ] On that day each was to put aside at home something from his weekly earnings, forming a little hoard, so that there might be no hasty effort to raise funds on Paul's arrival.

Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: [ ] With himself, by him, in his own keeping. It was not therefore to be handed in at Mass.

Lang: [ ] The phrase is therefore conclusive against the prevailing opinion that the collection was taken up in church. It was an individual and private affair.

New Testament Commentary, Simon J. Kistemaker: [1993] He uses the present tense of the verb to put aside to indicate that every believer must do so regularly. Paul fails to say where the "something" should be stored, but he implies that the individual believer should store these gifts "by himself" until Paul arrived to collect them. ... But the wording of the text seems to suggest that gifts for the Jerusalem Christians were kept by the individual at home. Paul tells the Corinthian believers to give on the first day of the week but he does not stipulate that their gifts be collected by church officials. The money was not for local needs, to be distributed by the deacons. It was a special gift set aside by the individual for the Jerusalem saints. {emphasis mine, rwb}

COMMENTARIES {popularly used by `the church of Christ}:

A New Literal Translation From the Original Greek of All the APOSTOLIC EPISTLES with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical., James MacKnight: [1795] {Commentary}: On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, suitable to the gains of the preceding week, putting it into the appointed treasury, that when I come to Corinth to receive your alms, there may be no collections; every one having given what he intended to give. {Notes}: 2. Let each of you lay somewhat by itself, &c.]? ???_ _???_ ?????? ?????????v _ ?? ?v ??o?????. In this passage, if I mistake not, o?? is not the neuter of the indefinite pronoun o????, as some suppose, but two words, which must be thus construed and supplied: ?????? ?????????? (sup. ???) _ ?v ??o????? ?????????v, ?v?, &c. A similar inverted order of the pronoun we have in Rom. xi.27.; 1 Cor.xv.36. The apostle's meaning is, that every first day of the week each of the Corinthians was to separate, from the gains of the preceding week, such a sum as he could spare, and put it into the treasury;(??nb) that there be no occasion to make collections when the apostle came. By this method the Corinthians, without inconveniency, might bestow a greater gift, than if they had given it all at once. The common translation of ?????????_ ????? ?????????v, viz. `lay by him in store, is inconsistent with the last part of the verse, `that there may be no gatherings when I come: for, according to that translation, the collections would still have been to make at the apostle's coming. 3. Putting it into the treasury.]? So ?????????v may be translated. The apostle means the treasury of the church, or some chest placed at the door of the church to receive their gifts. For although the Corinthians had separated a sum weekly for the saints, yet if they kept it in their own possession, the collections, as was observed in the preceding note, must still have been to make when the apostle came, contrary to his intention.

{Concerning those who consider his credibility unimpeachable, a revealing excerpt from a capsule biography of James MacKnight, Church of Scotland. rwb} "... But after mature deliberation, with that manliness and self?decision which marked his character, he adopted the principles that were to regulate his future conduct in the Church Courts; and, throughout life, he acted steadily on that system of ecclesiastical policy which, for many years past, has guided the decisions of the General Assembly. At the same time, he firmly resisted whatever appeared to him as any infringement on the constitutional law or practice of the Church; ... that no member of the Church to which he belonged ever, perhaps, entertained more just or profound views respecting the great fundamental principles of her constitution and laws, or concerning the nature and distinctive powers of her constitution and laws of her several judicatories; and that in relation to the business which usually occupies the General Assembly, either in its judicative or in its legislative capacity, he always formed a clear, sound, and decisive judgment. On this account he was often consulted by the leading members of that Court ..."

Clarke's Commentary, Adam Clarke: [1814]

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Answers

Leave it to Nelta to quote the Jehovah's Witnesses "New World" translation. Typical.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Well Ben....

All I can say is.....there goes your "more flies with honey" theory.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Nelta...

I'm looking so forward to it!!

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Nelta,

Every one of the translators you quote who added the words "at home" is guilty of the same thing as the "translators" that Connie has quoted at times to show that baptism is not necessary for salvation -- they have inserted words that they think (personal opinion) make the translation clearer, but that ARE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT.

Do you understand Koini Greek yourself? Do you at least have an interlinear Greek/English N.T.? Have you looked closely at this passage in the original Greek?

Here is a roughly word-by-word translation of I Cor. 16:1-2 --

And/but concerning the collection, the (one) into/for the saints, just as I commanded the churches of Galatia, in this manner also you must do. According to the one (i.e. first day) of the week, each of you beside himself must put aside (or deposit) storing up that with which if (assuming) he has prospered, in order that not when I come, then collections would happen.

To put it into more fluent modern English: "And concerning the collection for the saints, just as I commanded the churches of Galatia, so also you should do. On the first day of the week, each of you should put aside near himself (from) what he has been prospered, so that when I come, collections will not need to be taken."

The words "at home" simply ARE NOT THERE in the Greek text. The words "beside himself" (PAR' HEAUTOU) do convey a sense of doing it somewhere close at hand and therefore certainly COULD mean to do it at home IF THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT TO CONVEY A DIFFERENT MEANING. As I said in the other thread, I think that the fact that the day was specified (the day that we know from many sources was the primary day for Christian gatherings) and that the purpose was "so that there will be no collections when I come", taken together, show that the most likely interpretation was that on this day the money brought by each family and individual was to be pooled together in a central fund.

Or, how about this for a possibility that would satisfy the grammar, the sense of "nearness" conveyed by "beside himself" (PAR' HEAUTOU) and the sense of the context of the whole passage, which was that the offering was to be ALREADY COLLECTED when Paul arrived -- "Concerning the special collection for needy fellow Christians, you should do the same as I already instructed the Galatian churches. On Sunday, each family should lay aside (in their home) an amount in keeping with their income, so that they can take with them when they meet with other Christians later in the day" (that part being implied/understood since the meeting would be taking place), "and the result will be that when I come later you won't need to take up special collections at that time."

I think EITHER interpretation (either that they were to save it up at home or that they were to bring it together into a central treasury) is POSSIBLE. Either would fit the words and the grammar (as long as you remember that "at home" is added, and NOT in the original). I think personally that the latter makes more sense of the whole paragraph, while the former leaves too many unanswered questions.

I don't think there is enough in these two verses to support much weight of dogmatism ON EITHER SIDE. I think that those who want to claim that this PROVES that we MUST meet on Sunday -- and especially that we MUST do certain things on Sunday (and ONLY on Sunday?) -- are resting too much weight on their personal inferences, especially when those inferences rest on such slight evidence. But I think you are doing the same thing if you want to say that this verse MUST mean ONLY private savings at home for the Lord's work and NOT a collection into a central treasury. To say that it MIGHT mean saving it up at home is one thing; to say that it MUST mean that and ONLY that is quite another!!

If you don't want others to be dogmatic about binding their inferences and traditions on others as though they were the Word of God, then please don't do the same yourself!

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Ben, since you are so much smarter than all the translators I quoted I await your own translation.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Benjamin is correct, Nelta. The words "at home" do not appear in the Greek in my Interlinear either. It renders this passage, "Now about the collection for the saints, as I charged the churches of Galatia, so also ye do. On the first day of every week each of you by himself let him put storing up whatever he is prospered, lest whenever I come then there are collections.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Nelta,

My translation of these two verses is already given, above. In fact I translated it two ways -- a roughly word-by-word translation, and then a smoother rendering in more fluent modern English.

I did not claim to be smarter than the translaters you cited. I only said that those who insert the words "at home" are guilty of making their personal opinions of the meaning of the passage equal with the word of God itself. And, by the way, those who do this are, I notice, only a small minority among the many you quoted.

Most of the translations are quite accurate and very similar to each other, which makes me wonder why you bothered to quote so many. Of the many translations you cited, I counted only 8, plus NOTES of explanation on 2 others which added the words "at home". Most of these 8 I am not familiar with, and a couple of those I am familiar with are not very well respected, e.g. the New World translation is the Jehovah's Witness translation in which they deliberately changed certain passages to make them fit their pet doctrines about Christ.

The relevant words in the Greek text are EKASTOS HEMON PAR' HEAUTOi TITHETO THESAURIZON

EKASTOS = "each"

HEMON = "of you"

PAR' (abbreviation of PARA) = (when used with the dative case) "near, beside"

HEAUTOi = (dative case pronoun) "himself"

TITHETO = "must" (because it is imperative) "put, place, lay," etc. -- in commercial usage it could mean to "put aside", "store up", or "place on deposit"

THESAURIZON = "storing up, gathering, saving" (present active participle of THESAURIZO, "to store, gather, save", etc.)

PARA forms the root for our English word "parallel", and, as in English, simply means "beside". "Beside himself" (in a literal sense rather than the English idiom) does give some indication of "close at hand", which might SUGGEST doing it at home, which is why the lexicons and commentaries suggest that as a possible (expanded) meaning, but it is NOT a REQUIRED meaning. Since churches at that time met mainly in homes, wherever they took their collection would have been "close at hand" and probably in someone's home, though not necessarily the giver's own home.

As I said before, it is POSSIBLE that he meant for them to set something aside in their own homes; it's just that I, and, I think, most people, feel that that doesn't fit the context as well as the traditional view i.e. that they were to bring it into a central fund of some kind "so that collections will not need to be made when I come."

These two verses simply will not support too great a weight of dogmatism ON EITHER SIDE! I cannot prove 100% that he could not possibly have meant to save it up in their individual homes -- I just don't think that is very likely, in view of the context. And you certainly cannot prove 100% that it must necessarily mean saving it up in individual homes.

You seem -- and rightly so, I think -- to disapprove of people who make their inferences and traditions binding on other people and are dogmatic about doing so, claiming apostolic authority on the basis of a few "proof texts". Please don't be guilty of the same thing yourself. Just because a view is traditional does NOT necessarily make it wrong, and just because you have discovered possible new ways of understanding things does not necessarily mean that they are the ONLY way just because they are NOT the traditional way.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

BTW, Nelta, back to what you said at the beginning of this thread --

You said that "Some have a way of trying to intimidate others by putting them down....I was taught as a child those who do that are trying to build themselves up." I hope you were not including me among those you are referring to. In the other thread, which I presume prompted you to start this one, I did make a joke about how some here seem to perceive you, but that was intended as teasing and more against them than you.

And my later questions to you about whether or not you understood Koini Greek yourself were also NOT intended as a put-down. I felt it was relevant to the discussion. Whether or not you could read Greek yourself would make a difference in how much I would need to explain about what the passage meant -- what it said and what it did not say, in the original.

On the other hand, your remark that if I'm so much smarter than all these other translaters, why don't I do my own translation, sounds sarcastic and therefore awfully like a "put down" to me. If I'm misunderstanding what you meant when you said it, could you please explain what you did mean?

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Ok Ben, I'll try again. At home is a necessary inference. The point was that the money was to be BY HIMSELF.(Lay by him.) You are right! It wouldn't have to be At Home. It could be in the barn, in a jar in the creek, wherever *himself* is.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Danny: Not only did she quote from the Jehovah's Witnesses' warped New World Translation, she also quoted from the Mormon's own twisted scripture, Joseph Smith's "Inspired Version".

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Nelta: I hardly think that "at home" is a necessary inference at all. Couldn't it also have the same meaning it could have in English, "by himself" meaning that he was to do it himself, alone, with no one else doing it for him or knowing the amount he was giving? That would seem to parallel Jesus' statement of not letting the left hand know what the right hand was doing in regards to giving. It seems to me that that would be the more natural meaning of the passage in light of Jesus' words on the subject. [You Greek scholars feel free to help me out here.]

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Now, Benjamin, you have hurt my feelings! (Just kidding. ;-) )

From above:

Every one of the translators you quote who added the words "at home" is guilty of the same thing as the "translators" that Connie has quoted at times to show that baptism is not necessary for salvation -- they have inserted words that they think (personal opinion) make the translation clearer, but that ARE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT.

Benjamin, I think your translators that you support may have done the same with I Peter 2:21. The word 'baptizo' is not in that passage AT ALL. It is the word 'gennoah', which means 'physical birth' in all three references.

I know this is 'off topic' but I can't think of another example which might fit here.

Since the translators of the KJV were from the Church of England, and the Church of England kept the doctrine of the Roman Church on this matter, I believe they were biased. I wouldn't make reference to this except that I believe people on both sides of an issue will sometimes make 'their side' [aren't we ALL on the SAME SIDE?!] the one which prevails.

And I hope Dr. Jon isn't discouraged by this. I believe God, through the Holy Spirit, has preserved the message we need for salvation.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Perhaps since they met in homes (as well as daily in the temple when Jesus was still with them) THAT is why they were to keep it with themselves. That would be so that they would have it handy when Paul came. (IMHO) I don't know, though. I think it was for some sensible, non-dogmatic reason.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Connie

Are you refering to 1 Peter 2.21 or 3.21 in your above post.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Thank you, Faris,

It IS I Peter 3:21.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Nelta,

I'll concede (AGAIN! -- as I have several times already) that "at home" is a POSSIBLE inference, though one that I think is contradicted by the rest of what Paul says in these verses. It is NOT a "necessary" inference.

Once again, if you don't like others dogmatically binding their inferences on others, don't be guilty of this yourself. I think you would actually have better luck winning others to your points of view if you would present what you believe and why, and leave it to them to weigh the evidence and decide which they think is more likely, than telling us that we are all wrong (when we believe what most people have believed about this passage) and you are the only one who has the correct interpretation on the basis of evidence as flimsy as this.

By the way, EITHER way of looking on the situation (bringing it to a central fund, or saving it at home until Paul comes and then collecting it together at that time -- which is the very thing he says he wants to avoid) could include a kind of preliminary setting-aside of the money in one's home. I myself commonly count out ahead of time what I plan to give. Sometimes I do this right after I'm paid, and sometimes I do it on Saturday night before the church meetings the next day. I put it in a separate envelope and then it is all ready for me to take with me to put in the offering bag at the church assembly. So I suppose I do both. I set it aside "at home" and then put it in the central fund when the collection is made.

Connie,

I think you are confusing your references. You are right in one TINY point. I Peter 3:21 does not have the *verb* BAPTIZO ("I baptise/immerse"); instead it has the *noun* BAPTISMA ("baptism/immersion"). It does NOT have any form of the verb GENNAO. I think you are thinking of John 3:5, which does have the passive form of the verb GENNAO ("bear" or "beget" -- the passive, therefore, meaning to "be begotten" or "be born").

As for why the words BAPTIZO or BAPTISMA do not appear in John 3:5, did you read what I wrote in the "Sinners' Prayer" thread on July 5? In case you didn't, I copy it here:

"You keep asking (and quoting others asking) why, if Jesus meant that people need to be 'baptized of water and spirit', he didn't just say that rather than 'born out of water and spirit.' The answer to that seems pretty obvious, but no one else seems to have answered it yet, so I'll try.

"In the Bible, quite a number of different figures of speech are used to describe baptism and what is accomplished in us by Christ at the moment of our baptism -- death and burial, Romans 6, 'putting on' Christ like a garment, Gal. 3:26, 27, having our sins washed away (several passages), etc. This, i.e. being 'born again' (or 'born from above', if you prefer), is another of them. Why not say, 'baptised in water and spirit', rather than 'born out of water and spirit'? Because the figure of speech being used here is of birth.

"I suppose it might have been clearer if he had said something like 'born out of baptism and the spirit', but that would have been clumsier and less 'elegant.' Since 'spirit' can also mean 'breath' or 'wind', there is a certain elegance of expression in saying "water and spirit" which is lacking in 'baptism and spirit'. And no one has understood 'born out of water' in this passage to mean anything but baptism until the 20th century when the idea that it meant physical birth first surfaced."

You also said, "which means 'physical birth' in all three references". Which "three references"? I just made a quick count in my Greek N.T. In John 3:1-14, I counted at least EIGHT (8) places where a form of the word GENNAO is used. Here they are, translated into English and quoted from the NIV.

3:3 "... unless a man is BORN again" [or "from above", likewise below] "he cannot see the kingdom of God."

3:4 "'But,' said Nicodemus, 'how can a man be BORN when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!'"

3:5 "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, unless a man is BORN of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'"

3:6 "'Flesh GIVES BIRTH to flesh, but the Spirit GIVES BIRTH to spirit.'"

3:7 "'You should not be surprised at my saying, "You must be BORN again."'"

In the two times Nicodemus uses the word, he is plainly thinking of physical birth, but he is also plainly misunderstanding the meaning of Jesus.

Of the six times that Jesus uses the word, one plainly means physical birth (the first clause of verse 6 -- "flesh GIVES BIRTH to flesh". Three times (verse 3, the second clause of verse 6, and verse 7) Jesus is plainly speaking of our spiritual "re-birth".

This only leaves verse 5. Most commentators, traditionally, have understood this ONE use of the word to refer to ONE birth, our spiritual re-birth, coming out of two sources, the water of baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit. Your interpretation would make the ONE use of the word refer to TWO different kinds of birth. That is possible, but it is more likely that if he meant TWO kinds of birth, he would have used the word twice, as he did in verse 6.

I believe (as have most commentators who have discussed this passage from the earliest references to it until now) that "born of water" in John 3 refers to baptism (immersion). But if you prefer to continue to believe that "born of water" in this passage refers to physical birth, it really doesn't make much difference in the long run. There are many other much clearer passages that clearly state that baptism (immersion) is a requirement for salvation, and many other very clear passages that plainly make a link between the water of baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, e.g., just for a start, Acts 2:38; Acts 19:1-7; Acts 22:16 (with Acts 9:14-19); I Cor. 12:13.

John,

I saw Joseph Smith's name, but didn't realise it was THE Joseph Smith because of the copyright date given -- 1974. Was this perhaps a re-publishing, or was it never published until then?

BTW, another version cited (one of those that adds "at home") is the Confraternity version, which I think is a Roman Catholic translation. I didn't bother to point that out earlier, however, because the Catholic translations are usually reasonably O.K. except that they include the Apocrypha as having the same status as the canonical books, and they include footnotes to "explain away" passages that are in conflict with Catholic teachings. But they usually confine such "explaining away" to the footnotes rather than the text itself. I'm not sure, one way or the other, about the Confraternity version.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Ben, you are mistaken if you think I am trying to bind ANYTHING on anyone. I present something, someone responds, I respond, they respond...etc. It might be a surprise to you but what you believe about this subject or any other subject is of no concern to me. I do like to discuss the scriptures but I also know there is a stopping point and that is usually when people start attacking others.

BTW this forum is the most caustic group of posters I have ever encoutered. I am often reminded of the scripture, "We will all stand before the judgement seat of God to give an account of the deeds done in the body." Another, "By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned."

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Benjamin;

It was never published or accepted as scripture by the Mormon church until 1974.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

"I calls 'em as I sees 'em!"

A couple of your responses to me APPEAR quite sarcastic. With one of them (that if I was so smart I ought to make my own translation) I invited you, if the apparent sarcasm wasn't really intended, to explain what you did mean by it. You haven't yet. Your latest response also sounds sarcastic to me (e.g. "it might be a surprise to you but what you believe about this subject or any other subject is of no concern to me"). If it's not -- not intentional sarcasm, that is -- then you might try rephrasing it in a less belligerent way, and might also explain what you meant by the previous apparent sarcasm.

If you are not wanting to "bind" your inferences on others, then WHY be as critical as you usually are of those who hold traditional views and don't agree with your newfound "discoveries"? And why be so insistent, when I had already conceded several times that "at home" was a "possible" inference, that it was a "NECESSARY" inference -- i.e. that I MUST be wrong in seeing it the way I do? And why the sarcasm about keeping it in the barn or a jar in the creek?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Yes, Faris and Benjamin, I had my references wrong.

I should have looked them up, and didn't, either time.

The portion which you quote, Benjamin, IS confusing, because it was one I copied and pasted from another forum, but it was another person's words (evan's). My name was at the sign-off spot, so you, (and my son Paul) thought they were my words. It was evan who kept asking why anyone would think those words meant baptism. He is the one studying Attic Greek at Oklahoma.

So the passage IS John 3:3-8. If I remember correctly (and I don't have my copies in front of me, so I could be wrong), both evan and Paul stated that the word 'again' is not in there ~ it is 'born(e) from above'~ as my son said 'fathered from above', or 'fathered out of water and wind'.

My son really has no axe to grind, so his interpretation would be neutral. He also has all the information about cases and such.

Presumably, evan's also would be. He gave a word-for-word translation.

I am too tired tonight to go over what you have said, and you sound a little perturbed, so I will just let it ride.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

BTW, since John 3 and I Peter 3:21 are not a part of I Cor. 16:1-2 -- and not even on the same subject, really -- I have started a new thread, titled "Born Again/From Above", to try to answer Connie's questions about the use of the phrase "born again" in John 3.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Back to Nelta,

Coming back to this again this morning after a night of sleep, I noticed one or two more things about your last message -- in case another is inserted while I'm writing this, I'm referring to the one where you say you don't care what my opinion is, and you find this forum very "caustic".

You said, "I do like to discuss the scriptures but I also know there is a stopping point and that is usually when people start attacking others."

I don't know if that particular sentence is intended for me specifically or not. The fact that it is the third sentence in the message, and the first two definitely are addressed directly to me, sort of suggests that this too is addressed to me. For the record, I have NEVER attacked you personally, either here or anywhere, and I have not even "attacked" your ideas, except to disagree and to give reasons why I disagree. You surely are not so sensitive as to take that as a personal attack!

You follow by saying that "... this forum is the most caustic group of posters I have ever encoutered. I am often reminded of the scripture, 'We will all stand before the judgement seat of God ...'"

You do say "this forum" and not "this thread", but why say this in this thread unless something in this thread has prompted the comment? If that is the case, may I ask what? Most of the sarcasm in this thread has come from you yourself. True, Danny did make a couple of sarcastic comments about you, but he does that almost every time you post something. If you aren't prepared to "take" that, then you ought not to be posting in this forum, since you should know by now that that is going to happen. Everyone else in this thread (and I have been the most prolific poster to it apart from yourself) has taken you and your idea seriously and has given serious answers to it. So why make a comment like that IN THIS THREAD?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Ben, I can't believe I am saying anymore about this. The reason I said what I did about not being concerned about what you thought about the subjects I brought up was because you said I tried to *force it down people's throats*. I just wanted you to know that we all stand on our own two feet and decide for ourselves what we believe. I don't stand just waiting for people to accept what I throw out. What I throw out is for discussion only.

Also, I was not talking to you about the *caustic* attitude. Sorry I put it in the same thread. I read for awhile what went on between Lee and (I forgot who) and it was caustic. No you have never been caustic to me. Please forgive me for putting that remark in our discussion.

Nelta

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

Peter and Paul were brothers in Christ, and apostles, and examples for the entire church throughout the ages. Yet Paul saw fit to be extremely caustic with Peter when Peter was demonstrably wrong in his public stand and action concerning Jewish and Gentile believers. Being caustic about the truth, while not in every case the most effective, certainly has its place in the defense of the scriptures.

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000