1 Cor. 1:18-"are saved" or "are being saved"?

[37818]

contextually τεταγμενοι can only mean the middle. It corresponds to verse 46, where it was the Jews who rejected the Gospel Message, and as Paul says, "considered themselves unworthy of eternal life", all of which is SELF, and therefore middle, and this will determine τεταγμενοι in verse 48. Those who like to use this verse for "predestination", try to force its meaning, but τεταγμενοι (τασσω) never has this meaning in the Greek.

So you are claiming τασσω does not have a verb form to be in a perfect middle participle.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Robertson did not say that an aoristic (instantaneous) present was wrong. He translated according to the wider context of the Pauline Scriptures. In his Word Pictures in the NT, he wrote, "Salvation is described by Paul as a thing done in the past, "we were saved" (Ro 8:24), as a present state, 'ye have been saved' (Eph 2:5), as a process, 'ye are being saved' (1Cor. 15:2), as a future result, 'thou shalt be saved' (Rom. 10:9)" (Vol. 4, Epistles of Paul, p. 77).

So, the personal translation of Robertson, "but unto us which are being saved" (op cit), is not said by him to be based on an interpretation of the Greek that demands the imperfective (progressive) aspect, but on the wider context of Pauline Scriptures.

can I ask why do you think that the greater majority of English versions after the KJV are wrong, and the KJV right?

 

[SavedByGrace]

So you are claiming τασσω does not have a verb form to be in a perfect middle participle.

not in the perfect middle, unless you know of any examples? As I have said, in the context of Acts 13:46-48, it is clear that Paul means that the middle is meant. Apart from theology, I believe that this is the natural way to take this.

The Cambridge Greek Testament has it right

καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed. In the controversies on predestination and election this sentence has constantly been brought forward. But it is manifestly unfair to take a sentence out of its context, and interpret it as if it stood alone. In Act_13:46 we are told that the Jews had adjudged themselves unworthy of eternal life, and all that is meant by the words in this verse is the opposite of that expression. The Jews were acting so as to proclaim themselves unworthy; the Gentiles were making manifest their desire to be deemed worthy. The two sections were like opposing troops, ranged (τεταγμένοι = marshalled) by themselves, and to some degree, though not unalterably, looked upon as so arranged by God on different sides. Thus the Gentiles were ordering themselves, and were ordered unto eternal life. The text says no word to warrant us in thinking that none could henceforth change sides. Nor is the rendering ‘ordained’ necessarily an evidence of the Calvinistic bias of our translators. The same rendering is found in other English versions and the Rhemish, strange to say, is even stronger, having ‘pre-ordinate.’

 

[John of Japan]

can I ask why do you think that the greater majority of English versions after the KJV are wrong, and the KJV right?

I never said that. I have not yet given my position on the verse. I have simply shown that there are two possibilities, and either one is permissible according to Greek verbal aspect theory. So neither is the KJV wrong, nor is it exclusively right.

Actually, in our ライフライン訳新約聖書 (Japanese Lifeline NT), We translated it: 救われている私たち, which can be back translated into English as either "we who are being saved." or "we who are saved" (condition of having been saved). There you go. Make the most of it.

Japanese verbal aspect is quite different from Greek. You can indicate either progressiveness or present condition in the same way, the "-te form" plus the helping verb, いる.

"Although tenses are few (only 2--JoJ), Japanese is extremely rich in verb forms that indicate moods or aspects of likeness, or belief on the part of the speaker, or appearances. Most of these are beyond the scope of this manual, but there is one such mood that is important and must be learned. This is a form which is called the probable mood. It indicates that action will probably occur, is probably occurring, may occur, etc."
Everett F. Bleiler, Essential Japanese Grammar, p. 35.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I never said that. I have not yet given my position on the verse. I have simply shown that there are two possibilities, and either one is permissible according to Greek verbal aspect theory. So neither is the KJV wrong, nor is it exclusively right.

Actually, in our ライフライン訳新約聖書 (Japanese Lifeline NT), We translated it: 救われている私たち, which can be back translated into English as either "we who are being saved." or "we who are saved" (condition of having been saved). There you go. Make the most of it.

Japanese verbal aspect is quite different from Greek. You can indicate either progressiveness or present condition in the same way, the "-te form" plus the helping verb, いる.

"Although tenses are few (only 2--JoJ), Japanese is extremely rich in verb forms that indicate moods or aspects of likeness, or belief on the part of the speaker, or appearances. Most of these are beyond the scope of this manual, but there is one such mood that is important and must be learned. This is a form which is called the probable mood. It indicates that action will probably occur, is probably occurring, may occur, etc."
Everett F. Bleiler, Essential Japanese Grammar, p. 35.

thanks for that, very useful

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said that. I have not yet given my position on the verse. I have simply shown that there are two possibilities, and either one is permissible according to Greek verbal aspect theory. So neither is the KJV wrong, nor is it exclusively right.

Actually, in our ライフライン訳新約聖書 (Japanese Lifeline NT), We translated it: 救われている私たち, which can be back translated into English as either "we who are being saved." or "we who are saved" (condition of having been saved). There you go. Make the most of it.

Japanese verbal aspect is quite different from Greek. You can indicate either progressiveness or present condition in the same way, the "-te form" plus the helping verb, いる.

"Although tenses are few (only 2--JoJ), Japanese is extremely rich in verb forms that indicate moods or aspects of likeness, or belief on the part of the speaker, or appearances. Most of these are beyond the scope of this manual, but there is one such mood that is important and must be learned. This is a form which is called the probable mood. It indicates that action will probably occur, is probably occurring, may occur, etc."
Everett F. Bleiler, Essential Japanese Grammar, p. 35.

Still cannot see where there is any real harm translating it either fashion! Certainly not as some say that making it one way means following Catholic theology instead!

 

[robycop3]

I never said that. I have not yet given my position on the verse. I have simply shown that there are two possibilities, and either one is permissible according to Greek verbal aspect theory. So neither is the KJV wrong, nor is it exclusively right.

Actually, in our ライフライン訳新約聖書 (Japanese Lifeline NT), We translated it: 救われている私たち, which can be back translated into English as either "we who are being saved." or "we who are saved" (condition of having been saved). There you go. Make the most of it.

Japanese verbal aspect is quite different from Greek. You can indicate either progressiveness or present condition in the same way, the "-te form" plus the helping verb, いる.

"Although tenses are few (only 2--JoJ), Japanese is extremely rich in verb forms that indicate moods or aspects of likeness, or belief on the part of the speaker, or appearances. Most of these are beyond the scope of this manual, but there is one such mood that is important and must be learned. This is a form which is called the probable mood. It indicates that action will probably occur, is probably occurring, may occur, etc."
Everett F. Bleiler, Essential Japanese Grammar, p. 35.

Not to derail the thread, but your post makes me think that 2 great tragedies could've been avoided had the Japanese press in Aug. 1945 taken the time to find out PM Suzuki's meaning when he used the word "mokasettsu" in reference to the Potsdam Ultimatum.

 

[John of Japan]

Not to derail the thread, but your post makes me think that 2 great tragedies could've been avoided had the Japanese press in Aug. 1945 taken the time to find out PM Suzuki's meaning when he used the word "mokasettsu" in reference to the Potsdam Ultimatum.

That was a very unfortunate choice of words. The Japanese did not take the Potsdam Declaration seriously, and it was not translated accurately, as I understand it. In their answer to the PD, the word 黙殺 (mokusatsu), it was claimed, simply meant "ignore," meaning they wanted to negotiate, though the PD was a demand for unconditional surrender. But even then, the word used had very strong nuance, since the second Chinese character by itself, 殺, means "to kill," and is used in the word for "murder," which is 殺人 (satsujin). So it meant, really, "strongly ignore."

Here is a reference for the meaning of mokusatsu: 黙殺 - Jisho.org

 

[thomas15]

..........................

The bottom line is that it causes those who practice the philosophy of a variety of bible translations to have a difficult time of obeying God and speaking the same things and having the same judgements, it seems to me.

How do you know this? Any examples?

 

[JD731]

How do you know this? Any examples?

Yes, the Greek speakers on this thread do not speak the same things and do not come to the same judgements. Pay attention. Where does that leave you and me if we follow them?

 

[robycop3]

That was a very unfortunate choice of words. The Japanese did not take the Potsdam Declaration seriously, and it was not translated accurately, as I understand it. In their answer to the PD, the word 黙殺 (mokusatsu), it was claimed, simply meant "ignore," meaning they wanted to negotiate, though the PD was a demand for unconditional surrender. But even then, the word used had very strong nuance, since the second Chinese character by itself, 殺, means "to kill," and is used in the word for "murder," which is 殺人 (satsujin). So it meant, really, "strongly ignore."

Here is a reference for the meaning of mokusatsu: 黙殺 - Jisho.org

Think I'll start a thread in the "history" sub-forum when I have time.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, the Greek speakers on this thread do not speak the same things and do not come to the same judgements. Pay attention. Where does that leave you and me if we follow them?

That sounds personal.

The Greek speakers on this thread are pointing people to the original language God gave His New Testament in. God did not give His Word in English, but in koine Greek. Is that a problem to you? If so, then you are going against God Himself and complaining about the language He chose to give the NT in. That's rebellion.

I suspect that you don't speak any other language but English. That is usually the case with those who make statements like yours. God gave me ability in languages, so that I was able to learn Japanese well and lead a translation effort from the Greek NT into that language, the first translation of the TR Greek NT that was the source for the KJV NT into modern Japanese, and only the second such translation ever. (The first was in classical Japanese.) Apparently you don't appreciate the language skills God gives His translators and teachers. I now teach young people NT Greek, some of who will go on to translate the Word of God into languages that have no Bible at all. You should rejoice in that if you love Jesus and His Word.

As for those others who reference the Greek on this thread and others, I know them through this board. They have put in many hundreds of hours learning that language, and have gained expertise. Yet you criticize them, having put in no effort at all to learn the language God gave the NT in.

 

[John of Japan]

Think I'll start a thread in the "history" sub-forum when I have time.

Go for it!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, the Greek speakers on this thread do not speak the same things and do not come to the same judgements. Pay attention. Where does that leave you and me if we follow them?

Not back door to KJVO, are we here?

 

[Yeshua1]

That sounds personal.

The Greek speakers on this thread are pointing people to the original language God gave His New Testament in. God did not give His Word in English, but in koine Greek. Is that a problem to you? If so, then you are going against God Himself and complaining about the language He chose to give the NT in. That's rebellion.

I suspect that you don't speak any other language but English. That is usually the case with those who make statements like yours. God gave me ability in languages, so that I was able to learn Japanese well and lead a translation effort from the Greek NT into that language, the first translation of the TR Greek NT that was the source for the KJV NT into modern Japanese, and only the second such translation ever. (The first was in classical Japanese.) Apparently you don't appreciate the language skills God gives His translators and teachers. I now teach young people NT Greek, some of who will go on to translate the Word of God into languages that have no Bible at all. You should rejoice in that if you love Jesus and His Word.

As for those others who reference the Greek on this thread and others, I know them through this board. They have put in many hundreds of hours learning that language, and have gained expertise. Yet you criticize them, having put in no effort at all to learn the language God gave the NT in.

This entire discussion highlights to me just how tricky it is to rightly translate the original languages scriptures into English, and how much of this shows just why KJVO position bases much of their venting into areas where can have sincere differences on translation!

 

[robycop3]

Go for it!

DONE !

 

[JD731]

That sounds personal.

The Greek speakers on this thread are pointing people to the original language God gave His New Testament in. God did not give His Word in English, but in koine Greek. Is that a problem to you? If so, then you are going against God Himself and complaining about the language He chose to give the NT in. That's rebellion.

I suspect that you don't speak any other language but English. That is usually the case with those who make statements like yours. God gave me ability in languages, so that I was able to learn Japanese well and lead a translation effort from the Greek NT into that language, the first translation of the TR Greek NT that was the source for the KJV NT into modern Japanese, and only the second such translation ever. (The first was in classical Japanese.) Apparently you don't appreciate the language skills God gives His translators and teachers. I now teach young people NT Greek, some of who will go on to translate the Word of God into languages that have no Bible at all. You should rejoice in that if you love Jesus and His Word.

As for those others who reference the Greek on this thread and others, I know them through this board. They have put in many hundreds of hours learning that language, and have gained expertise. Yet you criticize them, having put in no effort at all to learn the language God gave the NT in.

You misunderstand my objection and I apologize for not making it clear for you. I sure do not have a problem with translations into other languages. Our church is involved in that kind of work through some of our missionaries throughout the world. We, including myself, are taking money from our pockets and financing some of that. We are that serious about it.

The church age is two thousand years old. During that time God has been sending out preachers to preach the gospel of God to the whole world and it, the gospel of God, is the theme of the 13 letters of Paul to the gentiles. That is the good news from God that he has provided a means of forgiveness of sin, (along with it's penalty, the second death in the lake of fire), through Jesus Christ, who died for all the world and propitiated God on our behalf, having exhausted his wrath against sins on him, and then raised him from the dead, .and he will receive any and all who will come to him in his name. This is the good news, glad tidings God wants all men to know.

You have to ask yourself why don't the Japanese have a bible after 2000 years of church history. If we learn nothing else from this fact it is that God has not trusted the Japanese, or the eastern nations, to believe his word and attempt to evangelize the world. It is a westerner who has shown up after all these years to try to get them a bible from God. Late is better than not at all. I wish you well.

God has entrusted the preaching to the western nations. He gave us his perfect word in due time. The way of God is to move from the east to the west. You can check the scriptures yourself to prove that is true. Now, after rambling a bit, my reason for opposing the new translations is because of the number of new translations and the frequency of producing new ones from the same manuscripts. This waters down the word of God and makes it less glorious. If you believe the KJV has out dated language, I get that. Updating the language is one thing. Varying as many as 65000 words between translations does not give the impression that translators have a reverence for the words of God and the different translation philosophies proves it.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, the Greek speakers on this thread do not speak the same things and do not come to the same judgements. Pay attention. Where does that leave you and me if we follow them?

Where? Having God's word in OUR language.

Most of the world does not know Greek, Koine or otherwise, nor ancient Hebrew or Aramaic. If God didn't have p[eople translate His word from those languages into others, most of us would be in the dark about His word. We'd be almost as bad off as the Europeans "back in the day" when the RCC didn't permit any translating of God's word into the prevalent languages in the lands under RCC sway, making the people entirely-dependent upon RCC clergy for hearing God's word.

 

[John of Japan]

You misunderstand my objection and I apologize for not making it clear for you. I sure do not have a problem with translations into other languages. Our church is involved in that kind of work through some of our missionaries throughout the world. We, including myself, are taking money from our pockets and financing some of that. We are that serious about it.

That's great. Glad to hear it.

However, your post certainly looked like it was criticizing those of us on the BB who were posting concerning the Greek. I hope you weren't--that's an ignorant position, and most Baptists I know who love the KJV (myself included) are clear about the original Greek having the authority, not the KJV.

The church age is two thousand years old. During that time God has been sending out preachers to preach the gospel of God to the whole world and it, the gospel of God, is the theme of the 13 letters of Paul to the gentiles. That is the good news from God that he has provided a means of forgiveness of sin, (along with it's penalty, the second death in the lake of fire), through Jesus Christ, who died for all the world and propitiated God on our behalf, having exhausted his wrath against sins on him, and then raised him from the dead, .and he will receive any and all who will come to him in his name. This is the good news, glad tidings God wants all men to know.

Amen! I'm certainly in agreement here.

You have to ask yourself why don't the Japanese have a bible after 2000 years of church history. If we learn nothing else from this fact it is that God has not trusted the Japanese, or the eastern nations, to believe his word and attempt to evangelize the world. It is a westerner who has shown up after all these years to try to get them a bible from God. Late is better than not at all. I wish you well.

I totally disagree with your statement that "God has not trusted the Japanese." This blames God for those people groups not being reached with the Gospel, but in reality, Christians have not been obedient in getting the Gospel to all of the world. The Great Commission is clear in all of its five statements: Christians are to get the Gospel to the entire world, not just Europe. Such words as "all the world," "every creature," "all nations," "the uttermost part" make this clear.

God has entrusted the preaching to the western nations. He gave us his perfect word in due time. The way of God is to move from the east to the west. You can check the scriptures yourself to prove that is true. Now, after rambling a bit, my reason for opposing the new translations is because of the number of new translations and the frequency of producing new ones from the same manuscripts. This waters down the word of God and makes it less glorious. If you believe the KJV has out dated language, I get that. Updating the language is one thing. Varying as many as 65000 words between translations does not give the impression that translators have a reverence for the words of God and the different translation philosophies proves it.

I somewhat agree with you here. The Western nations have certainly been instrumental in getting out the Gospel by sending missionaries.

But now you've started talking about modern English translations, and you lost me there. I believe that there are way too many translations in English, and believe we have completely failed, especially as fundamental Baptists, in getting the Word of God into every nation. I've been asked before to work on a new English translation, but I will not do that. I would much rather do what I do: teaching future translators to reach the world for Christ by getting not only the Gospel, but the Word of God in every language.

 

[Yeshua1]

You misunderstand my objection and I apologize for not making it clear for you. I sure do not have a problem with translations into other languages. Our church is involved in that kind of work through some of our missionaries throughout the world. We, including myself, are taking money from our pockets and financing some of that. We are that serious about it.

The church age is two thousand years old. During that time God has been sending out preachers to preach the gospel of God to the whole world and it, the gospel of God, is the theme of the 13 letters of Paul to the gentiles. That is the good news from God that he has provided a means of forgiveness of sin, (along with it's penalty, the second death in the lake of fire), through Jesus Christ, who died for all the world and propitiated God on our behalf, having exhausted his wrath against sins on him, and then raised him from the dead, .and he will receive any and all who will come to him in his name. This is the good news, glad tidings God wants all men to know.

You have to ask yourself why don't the Japanese have a bible after 2000 years of church history. If we learn nothing else from this fact it is that God has not trusted the Japanese, or the eastern nations, to believe his word and attempt to evangelize the world. It is a westerner who has shown up after all these years to try to get them a bible from God. Late is better than not at all. I wish you well.

God has entrusted the preaching to the western nations. He gave us his perfect word in due time. The way of God is to move from the east to the west. You can check the scriptures yourself to prove that is true. Now, after rambling a bit, my reason for opposing the new translations is because of the number of new translations and the frequency of producing new ones from the same manuscripts. This waters down the word of God and makes it less glorious. If you believe the KJV has out dated language, I get that. Updating the language is one thing. Varying as many as 65000 words between translations does not give the impression that translators have a reverence for the words of God and the different translation philosophies proves it.

Still seems to me that you are supporting here KJVO!