Is that like the "faith in Christ and the faith of Christ?"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Challenging Common Translation Choices
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
Not insulting, just curious to your qualifications to change and alter translations here?Yet another Calvinist of the gang posting off topic gratuitous insults to derail discussion of bible study.
Thanks for an actual on topic question!!What about "word of God" or "word of Christ"?
The TR and the MT both have God rather than Christ at the end of this verse. The Critical Text has Christ. My view, i.e. accepting Dr. Dan B. Wallace's view, is that the most likely correct rendering is Christ. For example, contextually the gospel of Christ is in view.
Can any believe this poster, he has asked this same question dozens of times. When the unqualified questioner is allowed to derail bible study with off topic questions, you have to ask yourselves, just what is going on here...Not insulting, just curious to your qualifications to change and alter translations here?
Here we have a poster pretending he cannot understand this verse: Accordingly, the faith is based on heeding, moreover by heeding the declarations about Christ. (Interpretive translation of Romans 10:17)First, what do you mean by that? Second, where do you see that in Scripture?
Accordingly means "in light of the above" this is the response, according to context.
The faith refers to what we believe.
What we believe is based on our response to the declarations about Christ.
Heeding refers to comprehending and responding to information received.
Moreover is used in this construction to be emphatic.
By is a rendering of the preposition "dia" indicating the means by which the gospel is comprehended and accepted.
The declarations refers to what was reported about Christ.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You have made many posts commending the scholarly work of Dr. Dan Wallace. You do know, don't you, that he has been on the CBT team since 2019?My view, i.e. accepting Dr. Dan B. Wallace's view, is that the most likely correct rendering is Christ.
Well, since Jesus is Himself very God!Thanks for an actual on topic question!!
The TR and the MT both have God rather than Christ at the end of this verse. The Critical Text has Christ. My view, i.e. accepting Dr. Dan B. Wallace's view, is that the most likely correct rendering is Christ. For example, contextually the gospel of Christ is in view.
You keep liisting all of the "bad translation passages" that the various translations have, so on what basis can you judge the decisions made by the translators?Can any believe this poster, he has asked this same question dozens of times. When the unqualified questioner is allowed to derail bible study with off topic questions, you have to ask yourselves, just what is going on here...
was he not also part of the nas 2020 team?You have made many posts commending the scholarly work of Dr. Dan Wallace. You do know, don't you, that he has been on the CBT team since 2019?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
First of all, your interpretive skills are on display with with that unique wording. And it's not looking good at all. No translation anywhere approximates what you have come up with. Translations are best left in the hands of professionals.Here we have a poster pretending he cannot understand this verse: Accordingly, the faith is based on heeding, moreover by heeding the declarations about Christ. (Interpretive translation of Romans 10:17)
The faith refers to what we believe.
Secondly, the word faith in this verse is not at all related to its use in Jude 3 or Phil. 1:27. In those two places it stands for "the doctrinal content embraced by believers rather than the act of believing." (NET Note for Jude 3).
So no definite article --"the" is needed for Romans 10:17. It is describing the act of believing.
The word "heeded" needs to be accompanied with the word "heard" or some form of the word.
You don't need to get fancy by saying "heeding the declarations about Christ. Stick with the tried and true such as the NASB rendering of the verse:
"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
Hearing the message. And the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Folks, pay no attention to the naysayers who find fault where none exists. Their objections are pointless.
Why choose "the faith" as opposed to the customary choice of article (the) omission? Because it points to the information as the subject of the sentence, rather than "the act of believing." The idea is to not reject the declarations about Christ. One phrase that expresses this idea is "obedience to the faith."
Accordingly, the faith is based on heeding, moreover by heeding the declarations about Christ. (Interpretive translation of Romans 10:17)
Why choose "the faith" as opposed to the customary choice of article (the) omission? Because it points to the information as the subject of the sentence, rather than "the act of believing." The idea is to not reject the declarations about Christ. One phrase that expresses this idea is "obedience to the faith."
Accordingly, the faith is based on heeding, moreover by heeding the declarations about Christ. (Interpretive translation of Romans 10:17)
What basis should a bible study method use to determine if the rendering is flawed? Words added or delete that change the message. Also if a word meaning is changed from the historical-grammatical pallet. For example if a word meaning "from" or "since" is rendered "before" the specific rendering is flawed, and asks the question, how often do similar corruptions occur?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
The ESV team.was he not also part of the nas 2020 team?
Hundreds of years ago, Thomas Jefferson prepared a rendering of Christ's life. He was a product of the Age of Enlightenment, so he was all about rejecting sorcery, witchcraft, superstition and myth. His interpretation of the gospel accounts removed the miracles, thinking they were corruptions added to bolster the truth presented in the teachings of Christ. Sadly, he had missed the message of Paul.
The faith is not a take it or leave it proposition, it is either take all of it to choose life, or reject all or some of it to choose death. Mr. Jefferson did not heed some of the reports about Christ.
Accordingly, the faith is based on heeding, moreover by heeding the declarations about Christ. (Interpretive translation of Romans 10:17)
The faith is not a take it or leave it proposition, it is either take all of it to choose life, or reject all or some of it to choose death. Mr. Jefferson did not heed some of the reports about Christ.
Accordingly, the faith is based on heeding, moreover by heeding the declarations about Christ. (Interpretive translation of Romans 10:17)
Last edited:
Another Greek word to consider challenging the common translation choice is "kosmos" (G2889). The literal meaning refers to the components of a system, thus our planet, composed of water and soil and other non-organic or organic material is a "kosmos." So the challenge is to determine what system is in view from the context. By using the ambiguous English word "world" the translators have chosen to leave the interpretive understanding to the reader.
Let us consider John 3:16. God loved the "kosmos" in this way, He gave is unique Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life. Was the object of God's love for animals, trees, rocks or water? No. His love was directed toward humanity. So the system in view is humanity, not our planet.
If the idea had been only the Elect, then the verse should have read "... so that they would not perish..." But that is not how it reads, instead the verse addresses a subset of the "system." Therefore why not translate Kosmos here as "humanity?" One reason is to avoid the firestorm that would be waged by those holding the "Elect" view. Do other reasons come to mind?
Let us consider John 3:16. God loved the "kosmos" in this way, He gave is unique Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life. Was the object of God's love for animals, trees, rocks or water? No. His love was directed toward humanity. So the system in view is humanity, not our planet.
If the idea had been only the Elect, then the verse should have read "... so that they would not perish..." But that is not how it reads, instead the verse addresses a subset of the "system." Therefore why not translate Kosmos here as "humanity?" One reason is to avoid the firestorm that would be waged by those holding the "Elect" view. Do other reasons come to mind?
Thanks, so he would have approval then for both esv and the Niv 2011?The ESV team.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
John was referencing not just that Jews, but Gentiles also from around the world. Christ was slain and with his blood he purchased for God persons from among every tribe, language, people and nation on the face of the earth. See Rev. 5:9.Let us consider John 3:16.
If the idea had been only the Elect, then the verse should have read "... so that they would not perish..." But that is not how it reads, instead the verse addresses a subset of the "system." Therefore why not translate Kosmos here as "humanity?" One reason is to avoid the firestorm that would be waged by those holding the "Elect" view. Do other reasons come to mind?
Why is "Kosmos" translated "world" rather than humanity in John 3:16 or in the other dozens of places where "Kosmos" refers to people in John. We have already mentioned the propensity to stick with past renderings, and to avoid conflict by hiding in ambiguity. Are those the only reasons?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
No thanks, Van. All 60-some translations on BibleGateway has the word "world" in John 3:16, with the exception of the OBJ, which doesn't go your way.Why is "Kosmos" translated "world" rather than humanity in John 3:16
You're tilting at windmills Van.