Featured Rewriting Scripture

You do not know that the Greek routinely omits words (ellipsis). Yes you know that but present falsehood to avoid facing the fact James 2:5 does not say we were chosen to be rich in faith, but rather were rich in faith when chosen.

For those that think the poster claiming to know some fault I made, read this:
Ellipsis (linguistics) - Wikipedia

 

Utter nonsense. 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!

 

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!

 

How many times are you going to be allowed to attack me with generalizations (snip), rather than address the factual examples I provided of rewriting scripture? And of course I cited Dr. Dan Wallace for the placement of the phrase "from the foundation of the world" in Revelation 13:8, thus your claim I have not cited a single Greek scholar is yet another material false statement. See post #12

 

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.

 

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

 

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! The NASB correctly has "for salvation" rather than "to be saved" and btw, "to be saved" is a recent rewrite and has not been around for centuries.

2) Has the NIV, ESV or NLT been around for centuries? Nope, so there rewrites do not reflect what Bible scholars have understood for centuries.

All the examples of rewriting the text are rather recent, and many scholarly translations changed the rewrite back to the original, or put the addition in italics so the addition could be excluded from a careful study.

 

LOL, all the examples can be verified using English translations such as those I included in my posts.