Condemnation

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

*sigh*

There there, Snoop...every thing is gonna be alright.

[Snoopy]

*sniffle* thanks *sniffle* don't know.... if I've got the.... strength... to go on.... any more...*sniffle*

[InLove]

Thespian.

[juantoo3]

What does orientation have to do with this?

[InLove]

Yes, you are right, dear Juan. I shouldn't point fingers. After all, it does take one to know one.

[cyberpi]

I find a big difference between judgment and condemnation and when I went looking for verification in the gospels for what I believed I found them in the Greek and Latin. A number of verses in the gospels read completely different. In the KJV the following verses are translated differently:

judge -> sue, law: Matthew 5:40
judge -> condemn, condemned: John 3:17, John 3:18
judgment -> damnation: Matthew 23:23, Mark 6:11, John 5:29
judgment -> condemnation: John 3:19, John 5:24
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment... loss of differentiation between the two and the following:
judgment(krima) -> damnation: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
judgment(krima) -> condemnation, condemned: Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
condemn -> damned: Mark 16:16

Young's translation, which Earl had pointed out a few weeks ago:
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment
condemn -> sentenced: John 8:10, John 8:11

Outside of the gospels, Paul's words are so fragmented and distorted in the translations that I don't bother with them, but Young seems to do better. It would be interesting to read Paul's letters someday for what they were in Latin and try to figure out what he really meant. The NIV: the translation was made in the last century and it further adds and removes... an increase in entropy.

Anyhow I made this thread in part to help reinforce the definition of condemnation as I see it. I suggest that no matter what a person says it reflects them and their judgment. But when words or people are removed or deleted... I suggest that is the true condemnation.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by InLove

Yes, you are right, dear Juan. I shouldn't point fingers. After all, it does take one to know one.

Hmmm, not quite sure how to take that...

Not really worried, because I'm about as disoriented as they come.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I find a big difference between judgment and condemnation and when I went looking for verification in the gospels for what I believed I found them in the Greek and Latin. A number of verses in the gospels read completely different. In the KJV the following verses are translated differently:

judge -> sue, law: Matthew 5:40
judge -> condemn, condemned: John 3:17, John 3:18
judgment -> damnation: Matthew 23:23, Mark 6:11, John 5:29
judgment -> condemnation: John 3:19, John 5:24
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment... loss of differentiation between the two and the following:
judgment(krima) -> damnation: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
judgment(krima) -> condemnation, condemned: Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
condemn -> damned: Mark 16:16

Young's translation, which Earl had pointed out a few weeks ago:
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment
condemn -> sentenced: John 8:10, John 8:11

Outside of the gospels, Paul's words are so fragmented and distorted in the translations that I don't bother with them, but Young seems to do better. It would be interesting to read Paul's letters someday for what they were in Latin and try to figure out what he really meant. The NIV: the translation was made in the last century and it further adds and removes... an increase in entropy.

Anyhow I made this thread in part to help reinforce the definition of condemnation as I see it. I suggest that no matter what a person says it reflects them and their judgment. But when words or people are removed or deleted... I suggest that is the true condemnation.

It has taken me a while to begin to see what you have been attempting to say, but I believe the light is beginning to break through.

I struggle with this via a different set of preferred semantics, but the underlying issue appears to remain the same.

[cyberpi]

NIV:

Judge, judging (krino)
-> sue Matthew 5:40
-> condemn, condemned John 3:17, John 3:18, John 7:51, John 12:48, John 16:11
-> pass judgment John 8:15

Judgment (krisis)
-> condemned Matthew 23:33, John 5:24, John 5:29
-> justice Matthew 12:18, Matthew 12:20, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42
-> sin Mark 3:29
-> verdict John 3:19
-> decisions John 8:16
gone: Mark 6:11

Judgment (krima)
judgment John 9:39
-> punished Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
-> sentence, sentenced Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
worded out: Matthew 7:2

I should add that in KJV, Youngs, NIV, the greek 'diskastes' is also translated as 'Judge' in Luke 12:14 to eliminate a contrast in words.

So from the Greek word 'krisis', the NIV scribes believe that 'judgment', 'condemned', 'justice', 'sin', 'verdict', and a 'decision' are all really the same thing anyway. Or maybe they think they can divine words into new definitions. Poetic license?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

So then, there is a difference between "judging" a person as condemned by their words or actions as opposed to critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

So then, there is a difference between "judging" a person as condemned by their words or actions as opposed to critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself?

Not as I see or read it. It is intersting to consider the dimension of time. I submit that:

Judging is of the past
Condemning is of a future.

When a person plans the future, it is really a judgment of the past.
When a person tries to condemn something (destroy) of the past, it is really a potential future that gets condemned.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Not as I see or read it. It is intersting to consider the dimension of time. I submit that:

Judging is of the past
Condemning is of a future.

When a person plans the future, it is really a judgment of the past.
When a person tries to condemn something (destroy) of the past, it is really a potential future that gets condemned.

Perhaps I am not following as well as I thought...

Is there no recourse for wisdom?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Perhaps I am not following as well as I thought...

Is there no recourse for wisdom?

I'm not sure what you mean by recourse. "Wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

So then, there is a difference between "judging" a person as condemned by their words or actions as opposed to critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself?

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Not as I see or read it. It is intersting to consider the dimension of time. I submit that:

Judging is of the past
Condemning is of a future.

When a person plans the future, it is really a judgment of the past.
When a person tries to condemn something (destroy) of the past, it is really a potential future that gets condemned.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I'm not sure what you mean by recourse. "Wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35)

I could of course quote extensively from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, however for brevity I will repeat my initial synopsis:
Critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself.

BTW, this was my concession to your earlier position about judging others of necessity. Am I to understand you have reconsidered?

[Saltmeister]

Judgment . . . making a decision.

If it's a decision that is about what will happen to a person (ie. what they deserve), it may consider the past and may involve condemning someone.

Condemnation . . . labelling (or "tagging") a person as "cursed," an "abomination" or deserving pain, suffering and punishment.