Rewriting Scripture

[Van]

2 Thessalonians 2:13 reads (NASB):
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

The Greek word translated "for" is the preposition "eis" which means when used locatively, "into" and when used after verbs of appointing or choosing, or doing, means "for the purpose of" the verb. In the above verse, God "has chosen you" for the purpose of "salvation."

The next phrase describes how and why God made His choice, through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Thus the plain reading of the text describes our conditional election for salvation.

However, there is a branch of Christianity that believes we were chosen unconditionally individually and so this verse does not fit with their mistaken doctrine. But rather than submit to God's word, instead they rewrite the text to read instead of "for salvation" they mistranslate the verse to read "to be saved."

What does this corruption accomplish? Rather than saying we were conditionally chosen, it now says we were chosen to be saved, and then the method of our being saved is said to be through sanctification by the Spirit and [instilling] faith in the truth.

Which translations are the chief offenders of this despicable violence upon God's holy word? Of course the usual suspects (NIV, NLT and ESV) but also including RSV. It must be noted that the NRSV fixed this error.

 

[Van]

1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB)
But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Greek word translated "the things" is the Greek article "ta" and identifies something specific concerning the Spirit of God. A literal translation would read "does not accept the [blank] of the Spirit of God. Most translations (as does the NASB) fill in the blank with the ambiguous "things" but this leads some to interpret the verse as saying "does not accept all the things" of the Spirit of God.

However, some translations go past presenting an accurate if vague translation to one that is agenda driven.

Here is an example of malfeasance:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (NIV)
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Note those words in "red" were added which suggests anything coming from God's Spirit will not be accepted.

Next we have yet another example of malfeasance:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (NLT)
But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

Note those words in "red" were added which suggests "truths" from God's spirit will not be accepted by those not indwelt.

What is the actual contextual scope of "the blank" of the Spirit of God? Spiritual solid food, meat! See 1 Corinthians 3:1. Paul speaks to new Christians "as to men of flesh" (thus not indwelt) using spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel.

So what do these agenda driven corruptions accomplish? They suggest those not indwelt are unable to understand the gospel! However, when contextually translated "...do not accept the solid food of the Spirit of God...," the spiritual milk of the gospel could be accepted.

 

[Van]

James 2:5 (interpretive translation)
Listen my beloved siblings, did not God choose the poor of humanity, yet those rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom promised to the ones loving Him.

Here the text has a blank in that the idea is God did not choose this but chose that. However, no Greek word is included in the text to make the transition from what God did not choose to what He did choose. We know the idea is a transition because those chosen were heirs to the kingdom promised, those that were in the present and not future loving God.

However nearly all English translations read "... poor to the world to be rich in faith...." Many add this alteration from presently rich in faith and loving God, to in the future rich in faith and in the future loving God.

So why do so many translations alter the text, some putting the addition in italics, butt most without any indication that words have been added by the translators to alter the message. Once again, if you accept the idea that individuals were chosen before creation, then you must choose them to be rich in faith, as they could not have faith before creation. So another effort to "fix" God's word according to the doctrine of men.

 

[AustinC]

Van, please stop rewriting scripture. You are an amateur linguist who is going out of his way to manipulate the Bible to try make it support your Vanolgy. Just...stop it.

 

[Salty]

Van, please stop rewriting scripture. You are an amateur linguist who is going out of his way to manipulate the Bible to try make it support your Vanolgy. Just...stop it.

So Austin - what are your qualifications to be a linguist?

 

[AustinC]

So Austin - what are your qualifications to be a linguist?

Well my friends at Wycliffe who have spent 30 years translating the Bible and then reviewing translations from many other languages would be my example of a linguist. My friend, Steve, has received extensive training in the structures of language and the patterns of speech that provide structure to a language.
Steve is a true linguist. Van has no concept of the work that is done and how much training is done to become adept. Yet, he simply gives a backhand to all these scholars who have forgotten more than van has ever known.

 

[Van]

Salty, thank you for pointing out that folks who address the qualifications of a poster, rather than what the poster states, are always lacking in decorum.

Posts 1, 2 and 3 present truth as reflected in many translations.

The issue actually is some credentialed translators try to "fix" scripture by changing nouns into verbs (salvation into saved) and by adding words to alter the actual text (that come from, these truth and to be).

 

[Salty]

Well my friends at Wycliffe who have spent 30 years translating the Bible and then reviewing translations from many other languages would be my example of a linguist. My friend, Steve, has received extensive training in the structures of language and the patterns of speech that provide structure to a language.
Steve is a true linguist. Van has no concept of the work that is done and how much training is done to become adept. Yet, he simply gives a backhand to all these scholars who have forgotten more than van has ever known.

But you did NOT answer my question:

"So Austin - what are your qualifications to be a linguist?"

 

[AustinC]

But you did NOT answer my question:

"So Austin - what are your qualifications to be a linguist?"

Salty, I know you don't think I answered, but that is my answer and you're going to have to live with that.
When a person like Steve, who has extensive training in linguistics, translating from Greek into multiple different languages, steps into the room, then you have a bonafide linguist.

 

[Salty]

Salty, I know you don't think I answered, but that is my answer and you're going to have to live with that.
When a person like Steve, who has extensive training in linguistics, translating from Greek into multiple different languages, steps into the room, then you have a bonafide linguist.

NO - I do not have to live with it.
If you do not have qualifications to be a certified linguist - - then be very careful how you deal with other people.

 

[canadyjd]

But you did NOT answer my question:

"So Austin - what are your qualifications to be a linguist?"

I will answer for myself. I have very little formal training in Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew (two semesters each) I know enough to get around the lexicons to research

But I know enough to recognize that Van is disregarding the true experts that have dedicated decades of their lives to studying these languages.

He readily admits to changing the meaning of words and phrases to fit his beliefs. He has demonstrated on many occasions an inability to understand “context” and appropriate word usage.

If Van believes he truly has something to contribute to biblical Greek scholarship, he should present his work to a scholarly journal for peer review.

That would actually be fun to watch.

BTW, AustinC is right about Van, imo.

peace to you

 

[Van]

LOL, folks, those that cannot address the topic seem free to make up false charges and post them with impunity. Clearly a rules violation as demonstrated in this quotation:

Remember that we're presenting ideas and not destroying people. Teach patiently as Second Timothy 2 says, or don't post at all. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.​

1) The premise you need two semesters of school training to be able to "get around" a lexicon is gibberish. All you need is to know how to read and a willingness to study. Ditto for an exhaustive concordance or reverse interlinear.

2) The claim I disregard experts is a material false statement. For example the reason names were not written since the foundation of the world, rather than the Lamb was slain since the foundation of the world (as per the KJV, NiV and NLT) is that I found the explanation in the NET bible footnote on the verse. Thus Dr. Dan Wallace is an expert which those who say otherwise are ignoring.

3) I do change the translation choices found in various sources, but not any actual word meaning. "Kosmos" is used to refer to humanity, and that meaning is found in multiple lexicons.

4) OTOH, "apo" always means "out from" or after or since but never before, so the ESV translators are the ones who have changed the meaning of the word, in Revelation 13:8 but not in Revelation 17:8.

Rev 13:8 (ESV)
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Rev 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.​

Bottom line, some translations rewrite the text to "fix" it according to man-made doctrine. No matter how many times I am slandered, truth will prevail..

 

[Van]

LOL, if you look at Revelation 17:8, you will see that the KJV and NIV agree that names were not written since or from the creation of the world, but the NLT has the names were not written "before" the foundation of the world, thus another example to changing the meaning of words to fit man-made doctrine.

Why do some translations change the meaning of "apo" to before? Because the doctrine they accept says individuals, and thus with names, were chosen before creation, so their names would be written in the Lamb's book of life before creation, and consequently names not chosen would not be written before creation. And the beat goes on....

 

[AustinC]

LOL, if you look at Revelation 17:8, you will see that the KJV and NIV agree that names were not written since or from the creation of the world, but the NLT has the names were not written "before" the foundation of the world, thus another example to changing the meaning of words to fit man-made doctrine.

Why do some translations change the meaning of "apo" to before? Because the doctrine they accept says individuals, and thus with names, were chosen before creation, so their names would be written in the Lamb's book of life before creation, and consequently names not chosen would not be written before creation. And the beat goes on....

 

[AustinC]

LOL, folks, those that cannot address the topic seem free to make up false charges and post them with impunity. Clearly a rules violation as demonstrated in this quotation:

Remember that we're presenting ideas and not destroying people. Teach patiently as Second Timothy 2 says, or don't post at all. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.​

1) The premise you need two semesters of school training to be able to "get around" a lexicon is gibberish. All you need is to know how to read and a willingness to study. Ditto for an exhaustive concordance or reverse interlinear.

2) The claim I disregard experts is a material false statement. For example the reason names were not written since the foundation of the world, rather than the Lamb was slain since the foundation of the world (as per the KJV, NiV and NLT) is that I found the explanation in the NET bible footnote on the verse. Thus Dr. Dan Wallace is an expert which those who say otherwise are ignoring.

3) I do change the translation choices found in various sources, but not any actual word meaning. "Kosmos" is used to refer to humanity, and that meaning is found in multiple lexicons.

4) OTOH, "apo" always means "out from" or after or since but never before, so the ESV translators are the ones who have changed the meaning of the word, in Revelation 13:8 but not in Revelation 17:8.

Rev 13:8 (ESV)
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Rev 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.​

Bottom line, some translations rewrite the text to "fix" it according to man-made doctrine. No matter how many times I am slandered, truth will prevail..

 

[The Archangel]

NO - I do not have to live with it.
If you do not have qualifications to be a certified linguist - - then be very careful how you deal with other people.

To be fair, you should be asking Van the same question: What are his qualification(s) to be a linguist. To my knowledge you haven't asked him this question. Instead, you've just accepted that he is correct and then questioned those who call "foul" on what he's said. This a form of "question begging" in a very round-about way. You're assuming Van is correct and not requiring him to validate his claims (perhaps without having the skill yourself to validate or invalidate his claims) while insisting those who challenge him validate their claims against him.

Just sayin'

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

James 2:5 (interpretive translation)
Listen my beloved siblings, did not God choose the poor of humanity, yet those rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom promised to the ones loving Him.

Here the text has a blank in that the idea is God did not choose this but chose that. However, no Greek word is included in the text to make the transition from what God did not choose to what He did choose. We know the idea is a transition because those chosen were heirs to the kingdom promised, those that were in the present and not future loving God.

However nearly all English translations read "... poor to the world to be rich in faith...." Many add this alteration from presently rich in faith and loving God, to in the future rich in faith and in the future loving God.

So why do so many translations alter the text, some putting the addition in italics, butt most without any indication that words have been added by the translators to alter the message. Once again, if you accept the idea that individuals were chosen before creation, then you must choose them to be rich in faith, as they could not have faith before creation. So another effort to "fix" God's word according to the doctrine of men.

You do realize, don't you, that Greek routinely omits the verb "to be" requiring it to be supplied by the reader or the translator? No.... you obviously don't. If you did know Greek, you'd know that.

The Archangel

 

[37818]

.

4) OTOH, "apo" always means "out from" or after or since but never before, so the ESV translators are the ones who have changed the meaning of the word, in Revelation 13:8 but not in Revelation 17:8.

FYI, the ESV is actually following the RSV on that. The NRSV corrected it.

 

[37818]

You do realize, don't you, that Greek routinely omits the verb "to be" requiring it to be supplied by the reader or the translator? No.... you obviously don't. If you did know Greek, you'd know that.

Please give two examples of this. Thanks.

 

[The Archangel]

Please give two examples of this. Thanks.

Why? What good would that do you? To those that have studied Greek, it is well-known. What you're asking here is tantamount to you asking me to "prove" the first or second amendment to the US Constitution.

Even if I did supply one of the examples in the NT, I would need to do it in Greek, since the translators supply the verb for the translation. So, my citing those examples, would, for a second reason, do you no good.

But, since you seem to doubt, I'll quote Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics for you. This is footnote 7 on page 38

"The most frequent implied verb is the equative verb, usually ειμι, and usually in the third person. Other verbs can also be implied, though almost always only if the preceding context has such a verb."
​

By the way... so that you can better understand the above quote... ειμι is the Greek verb "to be."

​

The Archangel.