Featured Vague Translations, Poor Translations and Mistranslations

Returning to topic:
An "antecedent" of a pronoun is the specific person, place, thing or idea to which the pronoun refers. For example,
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [fn]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
In the above verse two pronouns (that and it) refer to a vague antecedent. The footnote in the NASB identifies that the antecedent is "salvation" but plenty of Calvinist writers claim the antecedent includes faith as a gift. (The other pronoun "it" has been added, thus in italics, to smooth out the sentence.)

Here I think the translators missed a bet, as instead of adding another vague pronoun (it) they could have added in italics "salvation." Thus the verse might be translated as "For by grace you have been saved by means of faith; and that not of yourselves, salvation is the gift of God. An even better translation choice would be to find the actual antecedent of "that" which is "gift." Thus the verse, properly and contextually translated might read, "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

 

Note that RR posts are "certainly heterodox, obtuse, absurd," obnoxious and meritless to boot.

 

Returning to topic:

Improved and clarified translations:

1) Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

2) 1Corinthians 2:14: "But an unspiritual person does not accept the solid food things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him or her; and he or she cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Romans 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD when sinning:

4) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

5) James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

Let us consider John 6:37:
NASB1995
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

As usual when we ask, "all" of what, the answer is "everyone." So "Everyone the Father...."

"Gives Me" is usually thought to mean those designated for salvation, but it appears to refer to the action of giving with the result of arriving.

Thus we have, Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me....

Next we have the one who comes indicating a possible passive action, thus

and the one transferred to Me...

I will never cast out.

Putting the verse back together we get as a less ambiguous verse, Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me, and the one transferred to Me, I will never cast out.

 

Improved and clarified translations:

1) Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

2) 1Corinthians 2:14: "But an unspiritual person does not accept the solid foods of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him or her; and he or she cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Romans 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD when sinning:

4) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

5) James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

6) John 6:37: "Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me, and the one transferred to Me, I will never cast out.

 

Sometimes the scope or extent of a statement is not clear. Does "the things" refer to everything imaginable or to only the things contextually in view? 1 Corinthians 2:14 is a case in point. The natural man, referring to the lost that have not been born anew and indwelt, cannot understand "the things" of the Spirit of God. Does this specify "all the things" or "some of the things?" No.

So we must look at the context and how the flow of thought in the passage (explanation) is being presented. Three verses later, 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul speaks to new Christians "as men of flesh" again referring to the lost without the indwelt Spirit. He uses "spiritual milk" but not "spiritual solid food (meat)." Thus contextually "the things" refer to "the spiritual solid foods." If this was specified with the translation of 1 Corinthians 2:14, a whole basis for mistaken doctrine would be eliminated

 

Paul spoke to the new Christians "as to men of flesh," or in the same way he spoke to those not born anew.
No matter how often this truth is sidestepped in is there, in black and white, in God's printed word, in 1 Corinthians 3:1. To deny this verse teaches that men of flesh can understand and affirm the spiritual milk of the gospel is poppycock.

 

This poster did not look at the Greek word translated as arrive within to see if that meaning is cited in lexicons. He did not address how someone will not be cast out, unless they arrived within.

 

Naysayers are a dime a dozen, offering nothing except "taint so."
Did I distinguish that speaking "as to men of flesh" referred to speaking to those not born anew? Yes
Did Paul indicate he used "spiritual milk" to speak with "men of flesh?" Yes
Was any of this obvious truth addressed? Go figure...

 

Note the only posters posting taint so all lean Calvinistic.
Do you realize how heretical their 'translation' is? It is a blatant trampling of Scripture. There can be no debate or negotiating on the matter. They have added something directly contradicting the Bible.They do not have the right to insert such a blight on the Word of God. Whatever possessed them to do such a thing?
They charge others with their malfeasance! Adding "to be" in James 2:5 is just dandy, but removing the message altering insert is a "blight." Do they really claim people are actually seeking God when sinning. Who knows as they avoid truth. Do they claim lexicons do not say the meaning of tasso is an arrangement by mutual consent. Who knows as they avoid truth. Calvinism pours false doctrine into vague, poor and mistranslations, thus they hide this truth with twaddle.