Esv

[Rippon]

Why do I like the ESV?

[*]Essentially literal

How do you define essentially literal? Do you agree with ESV promotional material or the actual translation?

 

[Hermeneut7]

Thanks for your observation. No one is saying names were not written, and therefore by inference other names were written, and that when written or not written, and that written record stands forever. If names or choices were made "before" the foundation of the world, then they would stand through time. However, no such thing occurred. Names were not written, or omitted before the foundation of the world. The names were written or omitted "from or since" the foundation of the world. That is what the inspired text actually says. So line out before and put since in your ESV.

So Paul did not, repeat did not, "likewise teach" that the elect were chosen "from or since" the foundation of the world at Ephesians 1:4, he taught contrariwise that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

So you need to ask whoever provided that "study" bible why God would choose individuals before creation, but only write their names after creation? What if the phrase "in Him" actually means Christ was chosen to be the Lamb, the Redeemer, and so whoever Christ redeems was chosen corporately when Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world. Then it would make sense, if from or since the foundation of the world, God would choose individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, and write their names in the Lamb's book of Life.

I know, totally different view, made extra difficult because of the ESV mistranslation of God's word.

The ESV is not one of my preferred translations, but on this point I see no reason to believe it is some conspiracy. :smilewinkgrin: I find the same in other translations bringing out what a literal misses:

GNB- "written before the creation of the world"
CEV- "wasn't written before the time of creation"
RSV- "has not been written before the foundation of the world"

A 19th C Lutheran Greek scholar, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, on Rev. 13:8 states and I underline so it is not missed:

"ἐν τῶ βιβλίῳ, κ. τ. λ. Without doubt, the concluding clause ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσ΄ου belongs to γέγραπται, not to the ἐσφαγ΄ένου, as neither the explanation of the eternal predestination of the death of Christ, nor that of the sufferings of Christ in his people from Abel on, agrees with the expression and the connection of this passage. The characteristic of the inhabitants of the earth, in contrast with the saints refusing to worship the dragon, contains already, in the most pregnant manner, all the points upon which the patience of the saints expressly emphasized immediately afterwards, Revelation 13:10, depends. Those who worship the Lamb slain, of course, must suffer persecution; but just to the Lamb slain belongs the book of life, in which from eternity the names of believers are written: they, therefore, like the Lamb, conquer by their victory, and through all θλῖψις pass to the glory of eternal life..."

Then we have the old Thayer Greek-English lexicon as well noting the Greek on the parallel phrase in Rev. 17:8 -

"γράφω; (imperfect ἔγραφον); future γράψω; 1 aorist ἔγραψα; perfect γέγραφα; passive (present γράφομαι); perfect γεγραμμαι; (pluperfect 3 person singular ἐγέγραπτο, Revelation 17:8 Lachmann)."

For the meaning of "pluperfect" in grammar check the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluperfect

Notice the sentence in that article: "It is used to refer to an occurrence that was already in the past (completed) at a past time."

So, regardless of theological labels, I am forced to believe the names in the book of life were placed there before/from the creation, and HAVE NOT been continuously added thereto since the foundation of the world. The grammar just does not support it, according to scholars I can access.

 

[Rippon]

So our choice is the mistranslation by the ESV occurred by accident or agenda.

Do you wear a tinfoil hat Van? You specialize in inventing conspiracy theories.

Either way, it is proof of a mistranslation consistent with Calvinism. And everyone should agree with that obvious truth.

Why should everyone agree with your personal, isolated opinion?

 

[Van]

So the NIV and NLT are more Calvinistic than the ESV in your view?

Yes. When I looked at several verses more often the NLT and NIV presented Calvinistic translations without warrant than did the ESV.

 

[Van]

The ESV is not one of my preferred translations, but on this point I see no reason to believe it is some conspiracy. :smilewinkgrin: I find the same in other translations bringing out what a literal misses:

GNB- "written before the creation of the world"
CEV- "wasn't written before the time of creation"
RSV- "has not been written before the foundation of the world"

A 19th C Lutheran Greek scholar, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, on Rev. 13:8 states and I underline so it is not missed:

"ἐν τῶ βιβλίῳ, κ. τ. λ. Without doubt, the concluding clause ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσ΄ου belongs to γέγραπται, not to the ἐσφαγ΄ένου, as neither the explanation of the eternal predestination of the death of Christ, nor that of the sufferings of Christ in his people from Abel on, agrees with the expression and the connection of this passage. The characteristic of the inhabitants of the earth, in contrast with the saints refusing to worship the dragon, contains already, in the most pregnant manner, all the points upon which the patience of the saints expressly emphasized immediately afterwards, Revelation 13:10, depends. Those who worship the Lamb slain, of course, must suffer persecution; but just to the Lamb slain belongs the book of life, in which from eternity the names of believers are written: they, therefore, like the Lamb, conquer by their victory, and through all θλῖψις pass to the glory of eternal life..."

Then we have the old Thayer Greek-English lexicon as well noting the Greek on the parallel phrase in Rev. 17:8 -

"γράφω; (imperfect ἔγραφον); future γράψω; 1 aorist ἔγραψα; perfect γέγραφα; passive (present γράφομαι); perfect γεγραμμαι; (pluperfect 3 person singular ἐγέγραπτο, Revelation 17:8 Lachmann)."

For the meaning of "pluperfect" in grammar check the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluperfect

Notice the sentence in that article: "It is used to refer to an occurrence that was already in the past (completed) at a past time."

So, regardless of theological labels, I am forced to believe the names in the book of life were placed there before/from the creation, and HAVE NOT been continuously added thereto since the foundation of the world. The grammar just does not support it, according to scholars I can access.

Again, thanks for your observations.

1) Yes, Revelation 13:8 is mistranslated by the RSV, CEV, GNB, NIV and ESV. But the Greek word translated before, actually means from or since or after. The very same Greek word appears in the very same phrase at Revelation 17:8 and is translated "from" or "since."

So your first issue is whether or not you believe "apo" can be translated as "before." I say, with all lexicons I have found, it never means before.

If you can accept that the ESV mistranslates "apo" at Revelation 13:8 we have a start, a common ground.

Now we can consider when were the names written. Were they written before the foundation of the world, meaning before creation? No, they were written from or since creation. Today and tomorrow is still in that time zone. The idea is similar to saying "Americans have been defending freedom from the declaration of independence. So those in the revolutionary war were in the "from" time zone, as were those in WWII. When will the time zone end? At the end of the age.

2) Yes, Christ was predestined to death, as the chosen one, the Lamb of God. And when was He chosen for this sacrifice? Before the foundation of the world, in eternity, or from the foundation of the world? Before, just as 1 Peter 1:19-20 says.
So there are two similar phrases, one referring to before creation, and one referring to after creation. When were we chosen in Him? Again, before creation, Ephesians 1:4.

3) What your notes demonstrates is that they mistranslated "apo" on purpose to harmonize it with the "pro" phrases. Not accidentally. To say that a literal, i.e. accurate and correct translation, misses the point is dubious. The author knew how to write before the foundation of the world, i.e. John 17:24, so to claim John misspoke is absurd.

4) Revelation 13:10 does not depend on changing from to before. It says our faith and perseverance rely upon the certainty that once our names are written in the Lamb's book of life, we are destined to eternal glory with Christ.

5) Whenever our names are written, they are in there forever afterward, never to be erased or removed. So it is a completed action, the names in view at the end of the age, were written before that time. But we, today, are not at the end of the age, so names can, consistent with the grammar, be still being written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[Van]

Since I'm really fond of the NLT I'm curious as to what versus you feel are Calvinist. Thanks

Thanks for your question, and I do think several verses in the NLT mistranslate scripture in order to harmonize it with Calvinistic doctrine, but Revelation 13:8 is not one of them.
I will answer your question, but right now I am addressing those who disagree that the ESV mistranslates Revelation 13:8 in a manner consistent with Calvinism.

I have added this, I was remiss to not say the NLT is a sound translation, and you should not have reservations about using it. All translations contain mistaken or off the mark verses, that is why for study it is good to look at several reliable translations to make sure your version is not flawed at the particular view in view. The ESV likewise, is flawed at Revelation 13:8, but is spot on throughout most of scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, thanks for your observations.

1) Yes, Revelation 13:8 is mistranslated by the RSV, CEV, GNB, NIV and ESV. But the Greek word translated before, actually means from or since or after. The very same Greek word appears in the very same phrase at Revelation 17:8 and is translated "from" or "since."

So your first issue is whether or not you believe "apo" can be translated as "before." I say, with all lexicons I have found, it never means before.

If you can accept that the ESV mistranslates "apo" at Revelation 13:8 we have a start, a common ground.

Now we can consider when were the names written. Were they written before the foundation of the world, meaning before creation? No, they were written from or since creation. Today and tomorrow is still in that time zone. The idea is similar to saying "Americans have been defending freedom from the declaration of independence. So those in the revolutionary war were in the "from" time zone, as were those in WWII. When will the time zone end? At the end of the age.

2) Yes, Christ was predestined to death, as the chosen one, the Lamb of God. And when was He chosen for this sacrifice? Before the foundation of the world, in eternity, or from the foundation of the world? Before, just as 1 Peter 1:19-20 says.
So there are two similar phrases, one referring to before creation, and one referring to after creation. When were we chosen in Him? Again, before creation, Ephesians 1:4.

3) What your notes demonstrates is that they mistranslated "apo" on purpose to harmonize it with the "pro" phrases. Not accidentally. To say that a literal, i.e. accurate and correct translation, misses the point is dubious. The author knew how to write before the foundation of the world, i.e. John 17:24, so to claim John misspoke is absurd.

4) Revelation 13:10 does not depend on changing from to before. It says our faith and perseverance rely upon the certainty that once our names are written in the Lamb's book of life, we are destined to eternal glory with Christ.

5) Whenever our names are written, they are in there forever afterward, never to be erased or removed. So it is a completed action, the names in view at the end of the age, were written before that time. But we, today, are not at the end of the age, so names can, consistent with the grammar, be still being written in the Lamb's book of life.

The names of those to be saved by the death of Christ were known and written in by God before eternity, so the Body, nor the Gospel itself, nor jesus picked to be messiah etc!e truth is that , again, God in the NT scriptures has individual salvatrion in mind, NOT some kind of corporate election of ththe Body, nor the Gospel itself, nor jJesus picked to be messiah etc

text refers to whn the salvation happened per the mind and will of God towards his predestined saints in Christ, and that was in Eternity past!

 

[Van]

I believe in the reliability and trustworthiness of God's word, and therefore when God says names were not written (and others by inference written) from or since the foundation of the world, I believe God, not those who say He did not mean what He said.

 

[Hermeneut7]

I believe in the reliability and trustworthiness of God's word, and therefore when God says names were not written (and others by inference written) from or since the foundation of the world, I believe God, not those who say He did not mean what He said.

I offer for prayerful consideration the following:

Pr 8:23 (ASV) "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was."

Isa 40:21 (ASV) "Have ye not known? have yet not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?"

The book of Revelation uses phrasing and imagery from the OT. I see phrasing above that equates: "from everlasting", "from the beginning" and "Before the earth was"... then "from the beginning" equals "from the foundations of the earth". All similar terms in meaning and seen in Rev. 13:8. Now look at another verse in the NT:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Thess 2:13, KJV)

When I look back at Pro. 8:23 & Isa 40:21, I can see the language means God chose the elect "from everylasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was." Checking several of the other versions I go to first in my Bible study, I see the phrase in 2Th.2:13 rendered like this:

ASV - God chose you from the beginning unto salvation
RSV - God chose you from the beginning to be saved
NRSV- God chose you as the first fruits for salvation

The U.K. versions:

NEB - from the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation
REB - From the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation

Then we have the ESV...

ESV - God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved

Van, how would you "label" the ESV here in their choice of manuscript and translation?

 

[Van]

Hi Hermeneut7, for us to have a discussion you need to respond to my posts, not just ignore them and then ask additional questions. I provided a detailed response to each point contained in your post #62, in my post #65.

I asked if you would accept that the ESV mistranslates "apo" at Revelation 13:8. No response. But you continue to try to justify the mistranslation, so I must assume that you do not accept that it is a mistranslation. You would rather think the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB, the NLT, the NET, the WEB, and a host of others all got it wrong.

I addressed your argument from grammar. Did you see my point? I do not know.

I addressed your argument about not adding names to the Lamb's book of life in the current age. Did you see my point? I do not know.

We do not have a difference with what scripture actually says happen before the foundation of the world. We have a difference with what scripture says happened after the foundation of the world.

Yes, we can equate from everlasting with before the world was. Not an issue.

At 2 Thessalonians 2:13, when we were chosen from the beginning, one must ask, from the beginning of what. From or since creation? Ok that puts it in our current time zone. Does it say before the beginning? Nope.

And look at those UK versions that added "of time" to the text, but that is not in the text. So they interpreted the text to mean from the beginning of creation which is also the beginning of physical time. And not before time began.

In logic you cannot equate "Cats are like dogs, since they both walk on four feet, and Cats are like squirrels because they can climb trees, and conclude Dogs are like Squirrels because they climb trees.

Bottom line, from everlasting does not equate with from the beginning or from creation, or from when time began, or from the foundation of the world.

As I presented before, but do not recall a response, God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. This equates with from everlasting. But why were our names not written then? Answer, because this election for salvation was corporate, whereas the election taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is individual and occurred after we as an individual had faith in the truth, because we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Now again, when you look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13, do not just look at the ESV with its mistranslation "to be saved" but instead look at the KJV, the NKJV, the NET, the HCSB and the NASB. Because here the ESV translators have mistranslated the accusative noun, "salvation" as a verb "saved" violating the underlying grammar. So again, what the actual text says is manipulated to provide a translation consistent with Calvinism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Hermeneut7, for us to have a discussion you need to respond to my posts, not just ignore them and then ask additional questions. I provided a detailed response to each point contained in your post #62, in my post #65.

I asked if you would accept that the ESV mistranslates "apo" at Revelation 13:8. No response. But you continue to try to justify the mistranslation, so I must assume that you do not accept that it is a mistranslation. You would rather think the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB, the NLT, the NET, the WEB, and a host of others all got it wrong.

I addressed your argument from grammar. Did you see my point? I do not know.

I addressed your argument about not adding names to the Lamb's book of life in the current age. Did you see my point? I do not know.

We do not have a difference with what scripture actually says happen before the foundation of the world. We have a difference with what scripture says happened after the foundation of the world.

Yes, we can equate from everlasting with before the world was. Not an issue.

At 2 Thessalonians 2:13, when we were chosen from the beginning, one must ask, from the beginning of what. From or since creation? Ok that puts it in our current time zone. Does it say before the beginning? Nope.

And look at those UK versions that added "of time" to the text, but that is not in the text. So they interpreted the text to mean from the beginning of creation which is also the beginning of physical time. And not before time began.

In logic you cannot equate "Cats are like dogs, since they both walk on four feet, and Cats are like squirrels because they can climb trees, and conclude Dogs are like Squirrels because they climb trees.

Bottom line, from everlasting does not equate with from the beginning or from creation, or from when time began, or from the foundation of the world.

As I presented before, but do not recall a response, God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. This equates with from everlasting. But why were our names not written then? Answer, because this election for salvation was corporate, whereas the election taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is individual and occurred after we as an individual had faith in the truth, because we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Now again, when you look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13, do not just look at the ESV with its mistranslation "to be saved" but instead look at the KJV, the NKJV, the NET, the HCSB and the NASB. Because here the ESV translators have mistranslated the accusative noun, "salvation" as a verb "saved" violating the underlying grammar. So again, what the actual text says is manipulated to provide a translation consistent with Calvinism.

Jesus was in the beginning... Of what?

In like fashion, those of us saved were chosen by God from "before the/in the beginning!"

 

[Van]

Yes, Calvinism must rewrite scripture, changing since the foundation of the world into before the foundation of the world. They must change word meanings and add to scripture in order to not comprehend it is unbiblical and man-made doctrine.

 

[Hermeneut7]

I asked if you would accept that the ESV mistranslates "apo" at Revelation 13:8. No response. But you continue to try to justify the mistranslation, so I must assume that you do not accept that it is a mistranslation. You would rather think the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the HCSB, the NLT, the NET, the WEB, and a host of others all got it wrong.

I addressed your argument from grammar. Did you see my point? I do not know.

Sorry Van, I'll try again. I thought I had been demonstrating that translating literally into English does not always give the truth of the message. Why not just read the Hebrew-Greek-Interlinear if literal word for word consistently presents the truth. Let me try illustrating this way.

A Formal Equivalence, literal translation:
"and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed." (Rev 13:8, NET)

A Dynamic Equivalence, the meaning translation:
"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 13:8, ESV2011)

In prior posts I quoted Greek scholars on the words, "has not been written", that shows that is action done and completed in the past, not an action that is continuously taking place "since the foundation of the world". I also referenced in my last post the phrasing used in the OT showing the synonymous meaning of such phrases and how using a literal rendering in Rev. 13:8 can be misleading, or used to mislead. The NET may be literally correct on "since", but misleading as to the context in the phrase. The dynamic of the ESV gives the truth according to the Greek grammar of the associated words and the background of OT phrasing where the terms are synonymous, "before" or "from". The ESV uses the meaning as seen in the OT as I showed in my last post. A literal translation can be misleading and used to teach false doctrine. Let me illustrate with a well known verse.

A Formal Equivalence, literal translation:
"Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel." (Isa 7:14, REB)

A Dynamic Equivalence, the meaning translation:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa 7:14, ESV2011)

Here again the ESV used the Dynamic translation of the LXX, not the Formal and literal of the Hebrew. The REB followed the Formal translation of the literal Hebrew. Don't we agree that the meaning in Isa. 7:14 is "virgin" and not merely the literal maid or young unmarried woman of the Hebrew?

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry Van, I'll try again. I thought I had been demonstrating that translating literally into English does not always give the truth of the message. Why not just read the Hebrew-Greek-Interlinear if literal word for word consistently presents the truth. Let me try illustrating this way.

A Formal Equivalence, literal translation:
"and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed." (Rev 13:8, NET)

A Dynamic Equivalence, the meaning translation:
"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 13:8, ESV2011)

In prior posts I quoted Greek scholars on the words, "has not been written", that shows that is action done and completed in the past, not an action that is continuously taking place "since the foundation of the world". I also referenced in my last post the phrasing used in the OT showing the synonymous meaning of such phrases and how using a literal rendering in Rev. 13:8 can be misleading, or used to mislead. The NET may be literally correct on "since", but misleading as to the context in the phrase. The dynamic of the ESV gives the truth according to the Greek grammar of the associated words and the background of OT phrasing where the terms are synonymous, "before" or "from". The ESV uses the meaning as seen in the OT as I showed in my last post. A literal translation can be misleading and used to teach false doctrine. Let me illustrate with a well known verse.

A Formal Equivalence, literal translation:
"Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel." (Isa 7:14, REB)

A Dynamic Equivalence, the meaning translation:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa 7:14, ESV2011)

Here again the ESV used the Dynamic translation of the LXX, not the Formal and literal of the Hebrew. The REB followed the Formal translation of the literal Hebrew. Don't we agree that the meaning in Isa. 7:14 is "virgin" and not merely the literal maid or young unmarried woman of the Hebrew?

Think that you are illustrating to all of us that translation is NOT just grabing a lexicon and looking up the various meanings assigned to a word, as its aLso includeds taking ount idioms/contex/cognates/extra biblical usuages /background etc!

Its like translating literally the prologue of John from Grrek into English, we need to kind in mind the construction/grammar of the passage, not just doing only a word for word match up!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, Calvinism must rewrite scripture, changing since the foundation of the world into before the foundation of the world. They must change word meanings and add to scripture in order to not comprehend it is unbiblical and man-made doctrine.

Were the translators of the Niv and Nlt then all calvinists from reformed seminaries, with their bias creeping into the text?

 

[Van]

Sorry Van, I'll try again. I thought I had been demonstrating that translating literally into English does not always give the truth of the message. Why not just read the Hebrew-Greek-Interlinear if literal word for word consistently presents the truth. Let me try illustrating this way.

A Formal Equivalence, literal translation:
"and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed." (Rev 13:8, NET)

A Dynamic Equivalence, the meaning translation:
"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 13:8, ESV2011)

In prior posts I quoted Greek scholars on the words, "has not been written", that shows that is action done and completed in the past, not an action that is continuously taking place "since the foundation of the world". I also referenced in my last post the phrasing used in the OT showing the synonymous meaning of such phrases and how using a literal rendering in Rev. 13:8 can be misleading, or used to mislead. The NET may be literally correct on "since", but misleading as to the context in the phrase. The dynamic of the ESV gives the truth according to the Greek grammar of the associated words and the background of OT phrasing where the terms are synonymous, "before" or "from". The ESV uses the meaning as seen in the OT as I showed in my last post. A literal translation can be misleading and used to teach false doctrine. Let me illustrate with a well known verse.

A Formal Equivalence, literal translation:
"Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel." (Isa 7:14, REB)

A Dynamic Equivalence, the meaning translation:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa 7:14, ESV2011)

Here again the ESV used the Dynamic translation of the LXX, not the Formal and literal of the Hebrew. The REB followed the Formal translation of the literal Hebrew. Don't we agree that the meaning in Isa. 7:14 is "virgin" and not merely the literal maid or young unmarried woman of the Hebrew?

Let me try again.

In prior posts I quoted Greek scholars on the words, "has not been written", that shows that is action done and completed in the past, not an action that is continuously taking place "since the foundation of the world".

This ignores my rebuttal. This passage is set in the End Times period, thus the time from creation to the end of the age would allow for names to be added, and then the action would be completed when John wrote about the End Times.

Your argument about Revelation 13:8 falls apart at Revelation 17:8. John would not write from and mean before at 13:8 and not at 17:8. It is a mistranslation.

Now let me turn to your, the OT uses before to mean after or after to mean before. If we look at Proverbs 8:22 we see that God possessed wisdom at the beginning of His way. God is eternal so "at the beginning of eternity" matches before the foundation of the world, but not in the beginning of creation. Note your verse says God possessed wisdom before His works of old, i.e. creation. You cannot equate at the beginning of His way, referring to eternity, with in the beginning of creation, because Proverbs 8:22 teaches at the beginning of His way came before His works.

Now lets turn to Isaiah 40:21. This refers to from the foundation of the earth, or after creation. So you have not provided one example where "from" indicates before. What you have is from everlasting referring to a period before creation.

The ESV does not use any meaning found in the OT at Revelation 13:8. They change the very inspired words of John to make it conform to their preconceived notion of how it should read.

But Revelation 13:8 actually reads "from the foundation of the world" and that is what it means, after creation, in every place it is found. No exceptions.

You have a choice, change scripture to fit doctrine, or change doctrine to fit scripture. The doctrine I present is consistent with all scripture, I do not have to fix a verse here, a passage there, and so forth because that would mean I believe in myself and not in God.

 

[Van]

Were the translators of the Niv and Nlt then all calvinists from reformed seminaries, with their bias creeping into the text?

Calvinists start posting absurdity when they see that truth is not on their side.

 

[ElainaMor]

Thanks for your question, and I do think several verses in the NLT mistranslate scripture in order to harmonize it with Calvinistic doctrine, but Revelation 13:8 is not one of them.
I will answer your question, but right now I am addressing those who disagree that the ESV mistranslates Revelation 13:8 in a manner consistent with Calvinism.

I have added this, I was remiss to not say the NLT is a sound translation, and you should not have reservations about using it. All translations contain mistaken or off the mark verses, that is why for study it is good to look at several reliable translations to make sure your version is not flawed at the particular view in view. The ESV likewise, is flawed at Revelation 13:8, but is spot on throughout most of scripture.

Thanks for the response. When you have time I look forward to reviewing those versus...I'm curious

 

[Van]

Thanks for the response. When you have time I look forward to reviewing those versus...I'm curious

I apparently was confused about the New Living Translation at Revelation 13:8. I thought I have found it said, from the foundation, but now looking a two different sources, it says before.

So what does your copy say, from the foundation or before the foundation at Revelation 13:8?

 

[Rippon]

Were the translators of the NIV and NLT then all Calvinists from Reformed seminaries, with their bias creeping into the text?

Van, what in the world is absurd about the above? It's a legitimate question. Please answer it.