• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What are your thoughts regarding the Lockman Foundation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Ok, explain what you did mean then....
Click to expand...
I did. Did anyone see a version cited to support the idea we have formal equivalence versions that do not use italics?

But I think it is a fair assessment to say a sine qua non of formal equivalence versions is the use of italics (or other means of earmarking) to identify additions by the translators.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
But I think it is a fair assessment to say a sine qua non of formal equivalence versions is the use of italics (or other means of earmarking) to identify additions by the translators.
Click to expand...
Why? This clearly shows you don't understand what formal equivalence actually is and what it is not.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Based on what? For someone who loves to scream "Taint So" at people this post sure sounds like "Taint So"
Click to expand...
You do not understand. If that mindless response is good for the goose, it is good for....
I have post more than 20 verses where the ESV butchers the truth. For you to claim it is a formal equivalence version shows you have not studied "grammatical transformations" in the ESV. They change nouns into verbs to alter the message.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
You do not understand. If that mindless response is good for the goose, it is good for....
I have post more than 20 verses where the ESV butchers the truth. For you to claim it is a formal equivalence version shows you have not studied "grammatical transformations" in the ESV. They change nouns into verbs to alter the message.
Click to expand...
Show one verse where the message is actually altered and I will show you that you are speaking nonsense.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It was claimed the ESV which is based on the RSV meets the standard of formal equivalence yet does not use Italics to earmark additions to the text.

Let's look at James 2:5. The addition by the translators "to be" is in italics in the NKJV, LEB, and NASB.
However the addition alters the verse to the opposite message, with the actual text saying those chosen were rich in faith and loved God, whereas the modified text saying they were not yet rich in faith and did not yet love God.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
It was claimed the ESV which is based on the RSV meets the standard of formal equivalence yet does not use Italics to earmark additions to the text.

Let's look at James 2:5. The addition by the translators "to be" is in italics in the NKJV, LEB, and NASB.
However the addition alters the verse to the opposite message, with the actual text saying those chosen were rich in faith and loved God, whereas the modified text saying they were not yet rich in faith and did not yet love God.
Click to expand...
@Van
You need to think through your theology here a bit.

First, you just said, again, that the standard for formal equivalence is italics but then scream that isn't what you say when I challenge you on it.

Second, regarding James 2:5, do you really think someone is rich in faith before salvation? The answer to that is no. There is none that love God before salvation (Romans 3).

Furthermore, let's look at the Greek. The word for "rich" πλούσιος literally means "to being plentifully supplied with." So you can literally say, "has God not chosen those poor in the world to be plentifully supplied with faith"

So no, it is not changing any meaning to add the words "to be." If anything, it makes the meaning MORE CLEAR and accurate. It is MORE literal than the translations you supplied as a reference. But again, Romans 3 makes clear that there are none that seek after God. So how can they already be rich in faith? That makes no sense biblically and it also makes no sense grammatically.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
@Van
You need to think through your theology here a bit.

First, you just said, again, that the standard for formal equivalence is italics but then scream that isn't what you say when I challenge you on it.

Second, regarding James 2:5, do you really think someone is rich in faith before salvation? The answer to that is no. There is none that love God before salvation (Romans 3).

Furthermore, let's look at the Greek. The word for "rich" πλούσιος literally means "to being plentifully supplied with." So you can literally say, "has God not chosen those poor in the world to be plentifully supplied with faith"

So no, it is not changing any meaning to add the words "to be." If anything, it makes the meaning MORE CLEAR and accurate. It is MORE literal than the translations you supplied as a reference. But again, Romans 3 makes clear that there are none that seek after God. So how can they already be rich in faith? That makes no sense biblically and it also makes no sense grammatically.
Click to expand...
Starting your response with an ad hominem signals you are waving the white flag of surrender. People with facts on their side do not use logical fallacies.

I did not say the standard or definition of formal equivalence is italics? Nope, so another fabrication.

Regarding James 2:5 it says what it says, and your doctrine simply rewrites it to nullify it..

On and on they regurgitate the same falsehoods over and over, such as Romans 3 says there are none that seek God "at any time." Of course their little addition is left unstated to hide the falsification.
 
Last edited:
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Van said:
Starting your response with an ad hominem signals you are waving the white flag of surrender. People with facts on their side do not use logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
Where was the ad hominem?

Van said:
I did not say the standard or definition of formal equivalence is italics? Nope, so another fabrication.
Click to expand...
Van, yes, you have, multiple times. The fact that you deny this is astounding.

Van said:
Regarding James 2:5 says what it says, and your doctrine simply rewrites it to nullify it..
Click to expand...
So I go and show you the original language and exegete the verse and this is the best you can do? Telling.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Where was the ad hominem?

Van, yes, you have, multiple times. The fact that you deny this is astounding.

So I go and show you the original language and exegete the verse and this is the best you can do? Telling.
Click to expand...

The addition of "to be" at James 2:5 alters the message according to Calvinist doctrine. Not how it reads.
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
What does that mean Van. That's what you need to get at. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God?
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top