Bible Translation NLT, Tynsdale 2004 Acts 2:38-40

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The 2004 NLT reads as follows:

38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Who copyrighted the "pocket" version?

You see? exactly as I've said above. What monstrosity! (called 'dynamic equivalence) These clever ones don't like it to be offended; rather, it's impossible for them to be offended - they're far too high to be criticised, and oh, too holy these silent warriors for antic.hrist.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Pardon, Wycclif, not Tyndale. What makes this correction even more important, is the fact Wyccliffe translated from the source-material of the Vulgate. Shows how FAR from actual translation, these recent versions - who all claim the "original languages" - have gone!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I can respect translator who keep their beliefs out of the text and Let the reader come to pure understanding of what the Spirit is saying through the speaker.

There are many who don't agree with the misuses of Romans 10:9 and Rev 3:20, john 3:16 and a ton other scriptures, but wouldn't dare take the steps that this committee has in rendering their own interpretation or commentary as part of scripture to this degree.

This is very foolish.

All this is going to do is open up the door for revision of every scripture that does not "clearly" fit into certain belief systems. These same systems are being question ever now by current members of that system after they have take a clear look at the bible without their commentaries.

True, 15 years from now "new comers" would not know to question such tactics, because it would just seem right, but in fact it's completely off.

Is this not adding to Gods word spoken through his prophets?

GE:
Tazman, I admire you for taking stand like this. It is most encouraging to see there still are people who will not be taken for sheep so easily.

 

[Tazman]

Since the English language itself has not changed much in eight years, it is disturbing that so many changes were necessary in the 2004 revision. From the publisher's explanations here and here, it seems that the 1996 product could be characterized as a "first draft."

The replacement of the vague "for" with the "to show that you are" construction seems intended to address the misuse of this verse by the Church of Christ (and other promoters of baptism-based salvation).

You said that "For" is vague, why?

Is "To Show" specific?

 

[Tazman]

The sad part here is that with all the "seasoned" people here on this board it would seem that more than just a few would be concerned about Gods word being tampered with.

Prior to 2004, regardless the mixed people on the translation committee they never translated the scripture the way the NLT has.

But of course, it agree's with the mainstream evangelical interpretation, so why fight it, right. Peter should have just said what they wrote 2004 years earlier.

This only show's how fragile the convictions are of those who claim to Honor God.

To be honest, at this point I would more readily trust the translation of a scholarly none believer who is only interested in ancient greek culture and language rather than "believers" because it seems that they are the least trustworthy these day's.

Or, maybe I was too slow to pic up on this.

But if you have nothing to say against it then you have to be for it!

The immediate issue that I have a problem with is not the erroneous interpretation of the scripture, but rather that this commentary was rendered into the passage with no fear of God at all.

This is a matter of Godly reverence not some theological debate between.... well you know.

It's sad when more trust can be placed in the Godless than in christians.

 

[Jerome]

You said that "For" is vague, why?

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon:
""For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works. "

The 2004 revision conformed the Acts phrasing to that used in the 1996 edition at Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

TinyTim:
"Why the use of "in to" in place of "for""

GE:
The Greek is 'eis afesin' - 'with the view to forgiveness'.
But this is in line with the whole tenor of the passage, "Be baptised every one of you in the (VERY - 'epi') Name of Jesus Christ". It is within Christ forgiveness of sins is found; "in to" is very good grasping of the deepest meaning.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sins are not forgiven by baptism - that is Romish error.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As Jerome has said above, "the word "for" (in "for the forgiveness of sin") signifies an action in the past (Jesus' atonement for sin). Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works. "

 

[Tazman]

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon:
""For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works. "

The 2004 revision conformed the Acts phrasing to that used in the 1996 edition at Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3.

You example might find complete reason if it could incorporate both "into" and "For", but it cannot.

As it stands rather if it is taken as baptism for or into forgiveness of sins it still now where close to "To Show". To show is an opinion of the meaning of the text, not fact.

 

[Tazman]

Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works. "

I have an understanding of grace and works (eph 2:4), but in Pauls contention against works when has baptism ever been mentioned as a work?

I'm just interested in contextual relevence.

thanks

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You example might find complete reason if it could incorporate both "into" and "For", but it cannot.

As it stands rather if it is taken as baptism for or into forgiveness of sins it still now where close to "To Show". To show is an opinion of the meaning of the text, not fact.

GE:
Here's a big misunderstanding; I don't defend "to show", on the contrary! We - the forgiven - are immersed in the mercies of God in Christ - that's the 'baptism' here intended. Unless God first loved us we shall never love Him. How can a hater of God, of himself, repent his sins? It's totally against his nature and inclination. Now the wonder of redemption - as I believe you know and believe as well - is that God justifies the ungodly. His completely covers the sinner with and in the righteousness of Jesus, and unless - and this is Peter's 'condition' God so loved us first, we shall not repent, nor be forgiven our sins. It is grace that saves.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

And it's sinners that are saved ... nobody but, sinners!

 

[Tazman]

Sins are not forgiven by baptism - that is Romish error.

I understand where you are coming from, but
Regardless what any one believes about the meaning of the text, there has been a change in the translation of the text. That's the issue.

 

[Tazman]

GE:
Unless God first loved us we shall never love Him. How can a hater of God, of himself, repent his sins? .

Absolutly!:thumbs:

Now the wonder of redemption - as I believe you know and believe as well - is that God justifies the ungodly.

Yes. Through Faith in Jesus

His completely covers the sinner with and in the righteousness of Jesus, and unless - and this is Peter's 'condition' God so loved us first, we shall not repent, nor be forgiven our sins. It is grace that saves

Yes. No amount of repentance and good we can do can ever bring us to God without the sacrifice of the Son.

It's because of his sacrifice (Gods grace) that we can even have faith, because if he had not died our faith would be meaningless. Jesus' death is what brings the gift all together. Not of ourselves but of God.

God created the opertunity by his grace to all men. Some take him up on it and others reject it.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Absolutly!:thumbs:




Yes. Through Faith in Jesus



Yes. No amount of repentance and good we can do can ever bring us to God without the sacrifice of the Son.

It's because of his sacrifice (Gods grace) that we can even have faith, because if he had not died our faith would be meaningless. Jesus' death is what brings the gift all together. Not of ourselves but of God.

God created the opertunity by his grace to all men. Some take him up on it and others reject it.

GE:
Dear Tazman, I am in complete sympathy with you. Yet, there is something very obvious in - or from - your view, I have come to realise, is an unconscious yet great flaw in it seems a great number of people's conception of atonement. You don't use the word here, but of course atonement underlies everything you have said. You refer to sacrifice ehich is atonement.

But not completed atonement; in fact, if you go to any and all OT sacrifice or even bloodless 'gifts' and 'offerings' - without exception No atonement is geing accomplished without the representation of such sacrifice, gift or offering, BY THE PRIEST, IN THE SANCTUARY.

Now the big difference between outside and inside the Holies - or sanctuary - is the PRESENCE of God. God as it were, 'LIVES' within the sanctuary, whereas all sacrifices are KILLED outside the sanctuary. That's why it is said the life is in the blood. Of course the blood of a killed animal no longer possesses any live in it, nevertheless - symbolically - REPRESENTS its life, and when PRESENTED INSIDE, i.e., "BEFORE THE LORD", then, and then only, is actual 'atonement', being 'MADE'.

Now if you were to rewrite your statements, would you not - to be absolutely correct - have said it something like this?

'Yes. No amount of repentance and good we can do can ever bring us to God without the sacrifice AND RESURRECTION of the Son.

It's because of his sacrifice AND RESURRECTION (Gods grace) that we can even have faith, because if he had not died AND ROSE, our faith would be meaningless. Jesus' death AND RESURRECTION is THE ONE THING what brings the gift all together. Not of ourselves but of God.

God created the opertunity by his grace to all men. Some take him up on it and others reject it.'

Then it is also grace and nothing but grace that anyone would 'take God up on it' and accept it. That's the punn!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Our life is hid in Christ our Sanctuary in God our Sanctuary. As BobRyan opprobiously has phrased it is, "Christ entering Christ".

Let Roman Catholic heresy be exposed: It stop dead in death and never sees the light. Jesus is exposed near naked with the blood still streaming from his wounds in cathedrals, the crown of thorns his only adornment till today - Now that is what saved you, they tell us. But theirs is NO atonement - its IDOLATRY! What saved sinners, is the Word as read of, in e.g. Ephesians 1. He was Raised for our justification, says Paul in another place; and were He not raised, in another says he, You are still in your sins - lost and damned.

The SDAs see Jesus 'atoning' till today. Like the Catholics they despise the Finished Work of God in Jesus through resurrection from the dead. We were saved and are saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. IT WAS THEN THAT "HE GAVE THEM (THE PEOPLE OF GOD) REST"; IT WAS THEREIN THAT "HE ENTERED INTO REST HIS OWN AS GOD IN HIS OWN". (Hb4:8-10) "GOD IN HIS OWN" - we see Jesus risen from the dead! It is the Gospel!

 

[Darron Steele]

I am going to add these tidbits:

Acts 2:38b Tyndale New Testament of 1526 "Peter sayde unto them, Repent and be baptised every one off you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission..."

I also want to add something else. The Portuguese De Almeida ERC pre-1995 edition had “Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para perdão" = "You-people-must-repent-yourselves, and let-him-be baptized each one of you-people in name of Jesus Christ, in-order-for pardon."

The strong imperative is used for "Arrependei-vos" = KJV "Repent," but the obligatory subjunctive is used for "seja batizado" = KJV "be baptized." The strongest command is the "Repent."

The De Almeida ERA uses "Arrependei-vos" and "seja batizado" as well, as does the present ERC after 1995. The original D'Almeida used "Arrependeivos" and "bautizese" which is also obligatory subjunctive "let-s/he-baptize-self" = "let-s/he-get-self baptized."

The Spanish Reina-Valera tradition in the 1909, 1960, and 1995 uses "Arrepentíos" and "bautícese" which is also strong imperative "Repent" and obligatory subjunctive "let-s/he-baptize-self" = "let-s/he-get-self-baptized."

There is a difference in the force of the Greek verbs with emphasis on what the KJV translates "Repent"
--in Zodhiates, Complete WordStudy New Testament, page 397.
These foreign translations reflect that.

At Acts 2:38, it is the repentance that leads to "remission of your sins" (ASV). Jesus taught the same at Luke 24:47 "repentance for| remission of sins" (NASB|ASV). Baptism is to follow up that repentance.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darren Steele:
"At Acts 2:38, it is the repentance that leads to "remission of your sins" (ASV). Jesus taught the same at Luke 24:47 "repentance for| remission of sins" (NASB|ASV). Baptism is to follow up that repentance."

GE:
The Greek implies the opposite, namely, that the baptism of the Spirit shall go before anything else, for it literally says, "Be ye baptised INTO the Name ... unto baptism INTO forgiveness of sins". The Name is Jesus Christ; He, is the forgiveness. He who is justified is he whose sins are forgiven, who have been found "IN HIM". "In Him" is, that one's, baptism. Water, and baptism "into" (eis udaton) I cannot see there. It isn't there; it's only "into" Christ = "into forgiveness". It is a matter of by grace through faith COMPLETELY. No plusses - no Roman Catholic heresy.

 

[Tazman]

Darren Steele:
GE:
No plusses - no Roman Catholic heresy.[/quote]


GE -

It's statements like this that make me question ones motives in their rendering of the passage.