Rewriting Scripture

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

It is simply impossible to translate Greek into anything resembling decent English without adding words.
The KJV, NKJV and NASB place the words they add in italics so that the reader can see. I'm not aware of any others that do it. And one does either need some sort of knowledge of Greek to understand why the words are added, or read a good commentary.

 

[Van]

It is simply impossible to translate Greek into anything resembling decent English without adding words.
The KJV, NKJV and NASB place the words they add in italics so that the reader can see. I'm not aware of any others that do it. And one does either need some sort of knowledge of Greek to understand why the words are added, or read a good commentary.

Please address the topic, about 15 translations did not see the need to sneak in "to be" without italicizing the verb" so the question is how to better convey the actual message, and "yet" does the job without altering the text. The context does not allow changing God's choice from those rich in faith and loving God in the present, to the future.

ASV
Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?

DLNT
Listen, my beloved brothers— did not God choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and inheritors of the kingdom which He promised to the ones loving Him?

Phillips
For do notice, my brothers, that God chose poor men, whose only wealth was their faith, and made them heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love him.

LEB
Listen, my dear brothers! Did not God choose the poor of the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?

 

[37818]

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

You tell me. You made the argument ". . . 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? . . ."

In the institution of the remembrance Jesus said in metaphor, "This is my body." . . . τουτο εστι το σωμα μου . . . . . Many take εστι to mean the bread literally to be also His body. Now had that verb not been used? Would it still be in metaphor? Reference John 4:24 the verb was not used.

 

[Van]

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]

Didn't read the link? LOL

What link did you provide? And where did you provide it?

The Archangel

 

[Van]

What link did you provide? And where did you provide it?

The Archangel

Give me a break!!!!

 

[The Archangel]

Give me a break!!!!

About what? Not having a link to read? To which link are you referring???

The Archangel

 

[Van]

When we translated the ellipisis of James 2:5 as "... yet rich in faith" are we adding a conjunction or an adverb? And could the omitted adverb carry the meaning of "but, yet, nevertheless, moreover, and so forth? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

[The Archangel]

When we translated the ellipisis of James 2:5 as "... yet rich in faith" are we adding a conjunction or an adverb? And could the omitted adverb carry the meaning of "but, yet, nevertheless, moreover, and so forth? Inquiring minds want to know?

Is this the link to which you were referring?

When adding "yet" the point is you're adding. Whether "yet" is a conjunction or an adverb does not matter because you're adding to the given to text in an improper way. To add "to be" is not improper since Greek often implies the verb "to be." You're discussing apples and Volkswagens because an ellipsis is not in implied verb.

The Archangel

 

[Salty]

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

just say - I disagree with your interpertation.

and now this thread is CLOSED

do NOT start a similar for at least 30 days