To Be or Not To Be: That is the question of James 2:5

[Reformed1689]

In another thread it came through that some people think that the non-use of italics in the ESV for "to be" in James 2:5 is dishonest and changes the meaning of the verse. My response with the underlying Greek is below.

@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.

Taint so. Note this person is questioning my abilities, rather than addressing the topic. This is all they have.

Van said: ↑
Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God? (James 2:5)
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.

@Van I'm not questioning your abilities. I am saying that you either cannot or will not (I don't know which is correct) interact with the Greek. Why are you dodging this?

 

[Van]

In another thread it came through that some people think that the non-use of italics in the ESV for "to be" in James 2:5 is dishonest and changes the meaning of the verse. My response with the underlying Greek is below.

@Van I'm not questioning your abilities. I am saying that you either cannot or will not (I don't know which is correct) interact with the Greek. Why are you dodging this?

Taint so

 

[Reformed1689]

Taint so

Van, can you give me your thoughts on my OP instead of just saying Taint So?

 

[Reformed1689]

@Van

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.

 

[Van]

Van, can you give me your thoughts on my OP instead of just saying Taint So?

I am not the one addressing the poster and not the post.

 

[Reformed1689]

I am not the one addressing the poster and not the post.

@Van

@Van

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.

 

[Van]

To trust in the actual text, or to be mislead by the altered text, that is the question. Whether to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous falsehoods, or stand firmly against destructive falsehoods. That is the question.

And note the effort to go to another verse that does not say what Calvinism claims, the no one seeks God with the Calvinist add on "at any time."

Unconditional Election is bogus, James 2:5. The heirs to the kingdom loved God before they were chosen for salvation individually. They were rich in faith before they were chosen.

 

[Reformed1689]

To trust in the actual text, or to be mislead by the altered text, that is the question. Whether to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous falsehoods, or stand firmly against destructive falsehoods. That is the question.

@Van
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.

 

[Van]

Ask yourselves, if "rich" in the Greek is a verb (being supplied abundantly) or an adjective (one supplied abundantly.) The ones chosen were (1) poor - to the world, (2) rich - in faith, and (3) heirs - to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ask yourselves, if "rich" in the Greek is a verb (being supplied abundantly) or an adjective (one supplied abundantly.) The ones chosen were (1) poor - to the world, (2) rich - in faith, and (3) heirs - to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Van, yes, it is an adjective, but that doesn't change anything. By your argument, are you saying that if they are already rich in faith, and not "to be" rich in faith, then they are also ALREADY heirs to the kingdom before salvation? Before being chosen? OR are they heirs to the kingdom BECAUSE they are chosen?

 

[Van]

Van, yes, it is an adjective, but that doesn't change anything. By your argument, are you saying that if they are already rich in faith, and not "to be" rich in faith, then they are also ALREADY heirs to the kingdom before salvation? Before being chosen? OR are they heirs to the kingdom BECAUSE they are chosen?

Before!! And not to put too fine a point on it, heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. So again the heirs loved God before they were chosen. And to repeat, just because some deny the obvious they were heirs to the promised kingdom, not heirs of the kingdom. This is not rocket science.

 

[Reformed1689]

Before!! And not to put too fine a point on it, heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. So again the heirs loved God before they were chosen. And to repeat, just because some deny the obvious they were heirs to the promised kingdom, not heirs of the kingdom. This is not rocket science.

So we are already heirs before becoming children of God?

 

[Van]

So we are already heirs before becoming children of God?

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? Thus those chosen became heirs when God determined that they loved Him. So those chosen were heirs to the promised Kingdom when God determined that they loved Him. And of course the determination preceded the action but the interval is left to speculation.

 

[Reformed1689]

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? Thus those chosen became heirs when God determined that they loved Him. So those chosen were heirs to the promised Kingdom when God determined that they loved Him. And of course the determination preceded the action but the interval is left to speculation.

Wait, so now you add in to be? I thought that was the heretic translation. You are all over the place...

 

[Van]

Wait, so now you add in to be? I thought that was the heretic translation. You are all over the place...

And you expect others to accept you did not realize "to be" was in italics.

 

[Reformed1689]

And you expect others to accept you did not realize "to be" was in italics.

Oh no, I definitely realized it is in italics. But I thought you said it should be there at all...

 

[alexander284]

Oh no, I definitely realized it is in italics. But I thought you said it should be there at all...

I believe you're dealing with an individual who suffers from, in a word, "pride."

And believe me, I'm drawing on personal experience!

 

[Reformed1689]

@Van I have an honest question for you. You regularly attack the ESV for having "to be" in James 2:5. Yet every other major translation, except the KJV, also has this rendering. Are you saying all of the scholars are wrong?

 

[Van]

@Van I have an honest question for you. You regularly attack the ESV for having "to be" in James 2:5. Yet every other major translation, except the KJV, also has this rendering. Are you saying all of the scholars are wrong?

Asked and answered many times before, why not address my answer. Why simply repeat endless questions.
Recall "italics?"

 

[Reformed1689]

Asked and answered many times before, why not address my answer. Why simply repeat endless questions.
Recall "italics?"

But most of those translations do not put it in italics. Formal equivalent and functional equivalent translate it the same way so why do you think that it is incorrect? Do you know better than all of the scholars? They literally all disagree with you from both sides of the theological spectrum.