-
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!
To Be or Not To Be: That is the question of James 2:5
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
- Status
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
The ESV alters the text of James 2:5 to make it better fit with Calvinist doctrine. Those chosen as poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God were conditionally elected. However if you insert "to be" you change the message such that they were not rich in faith when chosen and were not those that loved God. Just one of many examples of Calvinist bias on display in the ESV
How does James 2:5 read in YLT? Weymouth New Testament? Websters Bible Translation? Darby Bible Translation? Douay - Rheims Bible? American King James Version? KJ2000 Bible? Aramaic Bible in Plain English? Contemporary English Version? None of these versions inserted "to be" into the text in order to alter the truth.
How does James 2:5 read in YLT? Weymouth New Testament? Websters Bible Translation? Darby Bible Translation? Douay - Rheims Bible? American King James Version? KJ2000 Bible? Aramaic Bible in Plain English? Contemporary English Version? None of these versions inserted "to be" into the text in order to alter the truth.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Already proven this to be false. It is perfectly within the semantic domain.
This contradicts the rest of Scripture.
That's what the Greek says too Van. Says we were chosen before we had faith. Before the foundation of the world. PREDESTINED. Not based on anything we said or did.
So you pick (outside of the KJV) either obscure translations, Catholic translations, or very liberal translations to prop up your point? That's pretty pathetic.
Adding "to be" to James 2:5 alters the text, that is why about 10 versions did not include that corruption. And a few more added the corruption but put it in "italics" so the reader would know it was not part of the inspired text.
The ESV alters the text of James 2:5 to make it better fit with Calvinist doctrine. Those chosen as poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God were conditionally elected. However if you insert "to be" you change the message such that they were not rich in faith when chosen and were not those that loved God. Just one of many examples of Calvinist bias on display in the ESV
How does James 2:5 read in YLT? Weymouth New Testament? Websters Bible Translation? Darby Bible Translation? Douay - Rheims Bible? American King James Version? KJ2000 Bible? Aramaic Bible in Plain English? Contemporary English Version? None of these versions inserted "to be" into the text in order to alter the actual inspired text.
The ESV alters the text of James 2:5 to make it better fit with Calvinist doctrine. Those chosen as poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God were conditionally elected. However if you insert "to be" you change the message such that they were not rich in faith when chosen and were not those that loved God. Just one of many examples of Calvinist bias on display in the ESV
How does James 2:5 read in YLT? Weymouth New Testament? Websters Bible Translation? Darby Bible Translation? Douay - Rheims Bible? American King James Version? KJ2000 Bible? Aramaic Bible in Plain English? Contemporary English Version? None of these versions inserted "to be" into the text in order to alter the actual inspired text.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
This is just an ignorant statement. How come as many, and more, put it in there? Why did you have to find obscure translations, Catholic translations, and liberal translations (aside from the KJV) to support your view?
No, it actually doesn't.
Again, we are not rich in faith prior to conversion. And, you are effectively preaching a works-based salvation if election is dependent upon something we must do. That is a work. Eph. 2:8-9 refutes this as does Titus 3:5.
Who cares how it reads in those? How does it read in the original language? What is the semantic range of the words Van?
Is "to be" found in the actual text? Nope
Is "to be" somehow necessitated by the Greek grammar? Nope
Is "to be" necessary to understand the scripture? Nope
Does "to be" alter and corrupt the message? Yep
About 10 versions do not insert the corruption into the text, many of them respected translations in the KJV family and in conservative translations such as Young's Literal Translation.
Is "to be" somehow necessitated by the Greek grammar? Nope
Is "to be" necessary to understand the scripture? Nope
Does "to be" alter and corrupt the message? Yep
About 10 versions do not insert the corruption into the text, many of them respected translations in the KJV family and in conservative translations such as Young's Literal Translation.
The views of false doctrine must be exposed, such as claiming James 2:5 does not teach conditional election based on being rich in faith and loving God.
No, James 2:5 teaches God's individual election picks people "rich in faith" and those "that love God."
Yet another deflection. Anyone can claim unreferenced "context" supports a bogus view.
OTOH, adding "to be" is not in the inspired text of James 2:5, its addition alters the message, and is an agenda driven alteration to support bogus doctrine.
Adding "to be" which is not in the inspired text of James 2:5, alters the message, and is an agenda driven alteration to support bogus doctrine.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No, an acceptable way was chosen by about 10 translations, and several others put the corruption in italics. For Calvinists to push for the corruption of the text to mesh with their bogus doctrine is disheartening.
- Status