In the context of the quote, "justify" means the act of explaining or reasoning something as good. In the Bible, "justify" means the act of God of declaring someone righteous in His sight. This is done on the basis of faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus as Romans 5:1 says, "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Me
It appears to me that you are modifying the meaning of text greatly to give your definition spin.
"Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
Are they justified by faith? or is their faith now justified... there is a huge difference between these two things.
If they are justified by faith - then all actions and thoughts held based on faith - regardless of what that faith is, are Just: This means that the "peace with God" has only come because they believed NOT because the bore witness to a proof. This explanation does -not- fit in with the reading at all.
If Faith is Justified (which is more likely what this line read as before translation) - then that means that through an act they bore witness to, their faith has been proved - and peace with God obtained through seeing proof of that belief which prior had no reason or explanation to hold - trust without evidence.
Neither of these explanations though, explain how God determines who is and is not just. It explains how the people came to peace with the notion of God existing... not how God found acceptance and righteousness in his people. So this concept of Just being something divinely mandated based on this quote, is ill conceived.
"Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
Are they justified by faith? or is their faith now justified... there is a huge difference between these two things.
If they are justified by faith - then all actions and thoughts held based on faith - regardless of what that faith is, are Just: This means that the "peace with God" has only come because they believed NOT because the bore witness to a proof. This explanation does -not- fit in with the reading at all.
If Faith is Justified (which is more likely what this line read as before translation) - then that means that through an act they bore witness to, their faith has been proved - and peace with God obtained through seeing proof of that belief which prior had no reason or explanation to hold - trust without evidence.
Neither of these explanations though, explain how God determines who is and is not just. It explains how the people came to peace with the notion of God existing... not how God found acceptance and righteousness in his people. So this concept of Just being something divinely mandated based on this quote, is ill conceived.
Evidently the text of the Bible is highly esteemed by you, since you are concerned about me putting my "spin" on it. I totally share that concern as I believe God will judge me for meddling with His revelation if I were to do that. For this reason I spent many years learning the Greek and Hebrew in which the Bible was written. I can assure you based on the rules of grammar, context and common usage that my plain explanation is correct.
Me November 5 at 11:10pm
David, were it only as easy as simply believing any man who claimed his interpretation was the correct one - then no one would have bothered to repeat the process of seeking to understand it for themselves at all... and so many versions would cease to exist in present day... and you and I would never have need to have this conversation.
But it is not that simple. You are a man, but you are not Christ, nor are you God, so the best you can deliver, even through your readings, is -your- understanding. Which I find conflict with; as I have detailed; so you are going to have to do better than saying "because I said so." Parts of the Bible were also written in Aramaic, it also was not called The Bible til it was written in Latin - are you a scholar or these languages as well? The Bible is a collective anthology, not the works of one or even two authors, and regardless of rules of grammar - which you can only assume the writers followed and were not at all deigning to be poetic or to make implications rather than speaking in the plain. Further more what you have provided to me is not a reasonable explanation and answer to the questions posed to you - if you have honest scholarly reason you should be able to refute in detail why and how what I have said is off base and why and how you are...just.. in your application
But it is not that simple. You are a man, but you are not Christ, nor are you God, so the best you can deliver, even through your readings, is -your- understanding. Which I find conflict with; as I have detailed; so you are going to have to do better than saying "because I said so." Parts of the Bible were also written in Aramaic, it also was not called The Bible til it was written in Latin - are you a scholar or these languages as well? The Bible is a collective anthology, not the works of one or even two authors, and regardless of rules of grammar - which you can only assume the writers followed and were not at all deigning to be poetic or to make implications rather than speaking in the plain. Further more what you have provided to me is not a reasonable explanation and answer to the questions posed to you - if you have honest scholarly reason you should be able to refute in detail why and how what I have said is off base and why and how you are...just.. in your application

chipper