Rewriting Scripture

[Van]

The challenge @Van…. Present a paper for peer review by Biblical Scholars to a professional journal.

Then let all of us know how it goes

peace to you

Credentialism is demonic nonsense, truth matters. All of the translations that do not have the rewrites were peer reviewed.

 

[AustinC]

I too am waiting for the peer reviewed work that Van has done in translating the Bible. Until then, I consider him to have the same skills in interpretation that Joe Smith and Charles Taze Russell had. (Do we really want to talk about demonic nonsense?)

I too will step away from this thread as it provides no benefit to the reader.

 

[canadyjd]

1) So if scholars from the past did not accurately translate the original text, we must accept it because not everyone corrected it? Give me a break!…..

Not being a Biblical Greek scholar myself I can only guess that when a change is made, they explain why they made the change and other Greek Scholars peer review their work.

I don’t think simply saying the change is because the current translation supports the doctrines of grace, therefore it must be wrong is a legitimate reason to change the translation.

peace to you

 

[The Archangel]

Yet another gratuitous insult, comfortable in your ignorance, but completely dodging:

You just posted the verb to be was omitted. On and on folks, the context of James 2:5 precludes the ellipsis being the verb "to be." Note that the folks loving God in the present, not future, were already heirs of the promised (past tense) kingdom!

First... Saying that someone is ignorant is not an insult. Using a word like "stupid," however, would be.

Secondly, I in no way was arguing about whether "to be" can or should be supplied in James 2:5. I merely was pointing out that you did not know about Greek's propensity to imply the verb "to be."

But, now that you bring it up, what about context affects the supplying of the verb? Whey can't it be that way in James 2:5?

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I just snipped some posts -
Lets NOT be calling other posters "ignorant"!
What you see see as a "Fact" others see as an "interpretation"
and this goes for other insults as well.

Lets keep these things in mind

So, if I can't use the word "ignorant," can I say "you lack knowledge" or "you lack understanding," or is that now prohibited too?

The Archangel

 

[Van]

First... Saying that someone is ignorant is not an insult. Using a word like "stupid," however, would be.
SNIP
So, if I can't use the word "ignorant," can I say "you lack knowledge" or "you lack understanding," or is that now prohibited too?
The Archangel

Not addressing the topic and instead addressing the person's qualifications is simply a fallacious argument.

Did not God choose the poor to the world (poor in the eyes of humanity) yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom promised to those loving God.

 

[The Archangel]

You're acting like what is sometimes been called a smart aleck.

In reply to your question, I do not mean to be. I'm asking why it's important to you whether or not "is" is in the text or supplied by the translation.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

First... Saying that someone is ignorant is not an insult. Using a word like "stupid," however, would be.

Secondly, I in no way was arguing about whether "to be" can or should be supplied in James 2:5. I merely was pointing out that you did not know about Greek's propensity to imply the verb "to be."

But, now that you bring it up, what about context affects the supplying of the verb? Whey can't it be that way in James 2:5?

The Archangel

LOL, saying someone is ignorant is a rules violation, an insult and the use of a malicious and fallacious argument.

Of course adding "to be" alters the text and corrupts it.

You do not need to know "to be" could be added contextually elsewhere, to know its addition at James 2:5 is precluded by context.

 

[Van]

I too am waiting for the peer reviewed work that Van has done in translating the Bible. Until then, I consider him to have the same skills in interpretation that Joe Smith and Charles Taze Russell had. (Do we really want to talk about demonic nonsense?)

I too will step away from this thread as it provides no benefit to the reader.

Here the false claim is that scholars such as those producing the NASB, NET, LEB and WEB do not agree that my examples are in fact rewrites.

 

[The Archangel]

Not addressing the topic and instead addressing the person's qualifications is simply a fallacious argument.

No, not at all. The "topic" I was addressing was your masquerade as someone who has proficiency in Greek, which is a more relevant topic at this point.

Did not God choose the poor to the world (poor in the eyes of humanity) yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom promised to those loving God.

So... you want to replace "to be" with "yet" when the conjunction "yet" is not supplied in the text? Good luck with that.

The Archangel

 

[37818]

So, if I can't use the word "ignorant," can I say "you lack knowledge" or "you lack understanding," or is that now prohibited too?

The Archangel

Everyone is ignorant of something. So use of that term as an accusation becomes an insult.

 

[Van]

No, not at all. The "topic" I was addressing was your masquerade as someone who has proficiency in Greek, which is a more relevant topic at this point.

So... you want to replace "to be" with "yet" when the conjunction "yet" is not supplied in the text? Good luck with that.

The Archangel

LOL, "Yet" is the word supplied by a scholarly commentary on the verse.

 

[The Archangel]

LOL, saying someone is ignorant is a rules violation, an insult and the use of a malicious and fallacious argument.

The word "ignorant" is a technical term to state that someone lacks knowledge, which you clearly do.

You know, its funny..... You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you. That's quite problematic for you.

Of course adding "to be" alters the text and corrupts it.

And adding "yet" doesn't???? Seriously?!

You do not need to know "to be" could be added contextually elsewhere, to know its addition at James 2:5 is precluded by context.

Supplying any word you wish was there is quite problematic. Implied verbs are a real thing. Implied conjunctions not so much.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Everyone is ignorant of something. So use of that term as an accusation becomes an insult.

Nope.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

LOL, "Yet" is the word supplied by a scholarly commentary on the verse.

So then cite it.

The Archangel

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Everyone is ignorant of something. So use of that term as an accusation becomes an insult.

There is an important point here.
If posters are not able to point out that @Van lacks any qualifications whatsoever in Greek, then there is a danger that someone might actually believe the nonsense he writes is based on knowledge rather than on speculation.

 

[Van]

Is "to be" an addition to the actual Greek text of James 2:5? Yes, thus if not italicized an unwarranted rewrite of the text. About how many peer reviewed English translations agree? About 15! (including the NASB, LEB, ASV KJV, and YLT)

 

[Van]

So then cite it.

The Archangel

Why, certainly a scholar like yourself would have read the literature.

 

[Van]

And adding "yet" doesn't???? Seriously?!
Supplying any word you wish was there is quite problematic. Implied verbs are a real thing. Implied conjunctions not so much.

The Archangel

Didn't read the link? LOL

 

[Van]

There is an important point here.
If posters are not able to point out that @Van lacks any qualifications whatsoever in Greek, then there is a danger that someone might actually believe the nonsense he writes is based on knowledge rather than on speculation.

Yet another poster ignoring all the English translations, old and new, that agree that the versions cited contain changed or added words to alter the message. You do not need credentials to read various English translations and take note of the changes and additions.