Galatians 5: 5-18 Using Multiple Translations

[RipponRedeaux]

1) But by the Spirit we earnestly anticipate the righteousness for which by faith we hope, 6) because in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the want of it has validity, but faith working through love. 7) You were running well -- who stopped you from obeying the truth? 8) It was certainly not any prompting from him who called you!

9) A little yeast works through the whole lump of dough. 10) The Lord makes me certain that you will see the truth of this. The one who has gotten you all mixed up will have to pay the price. This will happen no matter who has done it. 11) Brothers and sisters, if I'm still preaching circumcision, why am I still being harassed? In that case, the offense of the cross would be cancelled. 12) I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves! 13) For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don't use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.

14) All the Law has been fulfilled in a single statement : Love your neighbor as yourself. 15) However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. 16) But I say, behave in a spiritual way; then you will not carry out your fleshly cravings. 17) For the longings of the flesh are contrary to the Spirit, and those of the Spirit are contrary to the flesh; they are in opposition to each other, so that you do not do what you want to do. 18) But if you are led by the Spirit you aren't under the Law.

MLB : Vs. 5,6, 16, 17
CEB : Vs. 7,9, 11, 12, 14, 18
NIrV : Verse 10
NLT : Verse 13
NET : Verse 15
NJB : Verse 8

The styles of the various versions certainly differ from one another. But the message remains the same. I have found that some verses read the same. I simply had to chose one.

What do you think? Do these verses read in a disjointed fashion, or in fairly consistent understanding?

 

[JD731]

MLB : Vs. 5,6, 16, 17
CEB : Vs. 7,9, 11, 12, 14, 18
NIrV : Verse 10
NLT : Verse 13
NET : Verse 15
NJB : Verse 8

The styles of the various versions certainly differ from one another. But the message remains the same. I have found that some verses read the same. I simply had to chose one.

What do you think? Do these verses read in a disjointed fashion, or in fairly consistent understanding?

There is a huge problem with the logic that is displayed in this post that has the potential of great harm to the reader, IMO. The problem is that the scriptures is a divine book. It is given to us in individual words that make up a collective oneness, with each word dependent on the other in order to maintain order and symmetry. The reason I am saying this is because God is not interested in a message that is expressed in the words that men choose, but in words that he chooses. The doctrinal integrity of scripture is confirmed and maintained by a careful comparison of words, and since this is true, those words must be consistent in their use throughout all the bible.

One can easily translate the words from one language to the other and confidently say they have made a single passage understandable like you have done in this op but you have only translated the physical. That is the best any man can do. However, the scriptures, with all it's words is likewise a spiritual work given by God and Jesus Christ said in Jn 6:63 that the words he speaks are spirit and they are life. No one would be bold enough to say that all 10 renderings of Gal 5 that you have given us are spirit and life.

Word comparison with other portions of scriptures would not be consistent in cross referencing. Take any one of those ten translation and do cross referencing and you will go to different references.

When Jesus said in John 6 that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood all who heard, except some of his disciples, were offended and left him. The message that they did not get was that life comes when Jesus is inside them but they did not understand the message because they did not know the words of the OT scriptures, which would have made his pronouncements make perfect sense. How so, yo ask. Because the main purpose of this whole chapter is stated in verse 35, where Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; he that cometh unto men shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

This chapter is about the manna that came down from heaven from God, exactly what Jesus claimed for himself. However, the life giving and maintaining manna would do no one any good as long as it lay of the ground, but if it was eaten, then men would live who ate it. Jesus can not bring life unless he is inside a man and they must understand and believe that he has this power to give life. He had demonstrated this power and purpose the previous day when he took the 5 loafs and two fishes and feed the 5000 men. This is a physical demonstration of a spiritual truth that he gave in words in the synagogue in Capernaum. The fact that these men turned away demonstrated two things. 1) they did not really know their own scriptures and they rejected their opportunity to live forever by receiving Jesus Christ.

You men and careful about the physical, the translations in paper and ink, but you are not concerned with the spiritual, the Spirit chosen words of God which can enlighten your eyes.

 

[Logos1560]

There is a huge problem with the logic that is displayed in this post that has the potential of great harm to the reader, IMO.

You men and careful about the physical, the translations in paper and ink, but you are not concerned with the spiritual, the Spirit chosen words of God which can enlighten your eyes.

Perhaps there is a huge problem with your own human KJV-only logic that is not stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

You are wrong to suggest that Bible believers who do not agree with your human opinions concerning the KJV are not concerned with the spiritual.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

When Jesus said in John 6 that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood all who heard, except some of his disciples, were offended and left him. The message that they did not get was that life comes when Jesus is inside them but they did not understand the message because they did not know the words of the OT scriptures, which would have made his pronouncements make perfect sense. How so, yo ask. Because the main purpose of this whole chapter is stated in verse 35, where Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; he that cometh unto men shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

This chapter is about the manna that came down from heaven from God, exactly what Jesus claimed for himself. However, the life giving and maintaining manna would do no one any good as long as it lay of the ground, but if it was eaten, then men would live who ate it. Jesus can not bring life unless he is inside a man and they must understand and believe that he has this power to give life. He had demonstrated this power and purpose the previous day when he took the 5 loafs and two fishes and feed the 5000 men. This is a physical demonstration of a spiritual truth that he gave in words in the synagogue in Capernaum. The fact that these men turned away demonstrated two things. 1) they did not really know their own scriptures and they rejected their opportunity to live forever by receiving Jesus Christ.

You are confused. I treated Galatians 5, not John 6.

 

[JD731]

Perhaps there is a huge problem with your own human KJV-only logic that is not stated nor taught in the Scriptures.

You are wrong to suggest that Bible believers who do not agree with your human opinions concerning the KJV are not concerned with the spiritual.

Well, I did not actually make an argument for the KJV but I did state some facts that cannot be debunked. It is certainly true that the scriptures are both physical and spiritual. Jesus Christ did not say his message is Spirit and it is life, he said his words are.

Skilled men can translate the words from one language to another but it is impossible to translate the spiritual content. This is because God speaks in similitudes, a physical thing representing another. I gave you an example from John 6. There is a whole religious movement who does not know this and consequently teaches that the main teaching of John 6 is concerned with who cannot come to Jesus. The manna must be ingested for life and likewise Jesus must be in a person for them to have life.

If one of your translations left the manna out or substituted a different word that was different than the word in the typical passage, then the spiritual would be lost in that instance. Most religious systems would not be affected because they do not know this way of God in the first place. This is just a fact.

THe NT truths are dependent on the OT types. The truth of about any NT doctrine is confirmed in this manner.

Therefore, my logical conclusion is that men without the intervention of God cannot produce a translation that gives us the spiritual applications that are dependent on the words of countless passages throughout all the books of the Bible. Remember, he says here a little and there a little. And whatever you believe about translations, why do we need 10 of them in our English language?

 

[JD731]

You are confused. I treated Galatians 5, not John 6.

Not really confused. I acknowledged your point in Gal 5 and referenced John 6 concerning mine.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Not really confused. I acknowledged your point in Gal 5 and referenced John 6 concerning mine.

You spent your whole of post #2 talking about John 6. You said absolutely nothing about any of the 18 verses of Gal.5 that I provided.

 

[JD731]

You spent your whole of post #2 talking about John 6. You said absolutely nothing about any of the 18 verses of Gal.5 that I provided.

Okay, I will say this about the various translations. I don’t think they are to be trusted if they do not cross reference to the same passages. Do you?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Okay, I will say this about the various translations. I don’t think they are to be trusted if they do not cross reference to the same passages. Do you?

You certainly shy away from direct questions. Get specific. Delve into some of the verses I quoted from Gal.5. You need to be specific. Mere assertions will not do.

 

[JD731]

You certainly shy away from direct questions. Get specific. Delve into some of the verses I quoted from Gal.5. You need to be specific. Mere assertions will not do.

I understand your underlying argument. You have gone to some trouble to insert certain verses from different translation to teach us that it is the message from God that is important, not the words of God. It seems you are wanting us to understand that anyone with a pencil can superimpose their own style and words and do no damage to the text. I understand what your argument is and I reject it. If you are comfortable with believing that then I am fine with you believing it. However, believing it is one thing and actively teaching it to others is quite another and if you are wrong the penalty may be greater than you have anticipated. But I say carry on. You will know if this is good teaching soon enough.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

You certainly shy away from direct questions. Get specific. Delve into some of the verses I quoted from Gal.5. You need to be specific. Mere assertions will not do.

JD731, deal with the above, unless you have little regard for integrity.

 

[Logos1560]

You have gone to some trouble to insert certain verses from different translation to teach us that it is the message from God that is important, not the words of God.

Perhaps you do not really understand what the argument is as you may jump to wrong conclusions based on your own inconsistent, subjective reasoning concerning Bible translation.

It could as easily be suggested that you seem to assert or suggest that the original-language words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are not important and not the standard, but the message as translated imperfectly in the English words of the KJV is what is important. Your focus seems to be on the English words of one translation (an inconsistent revision of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles), and not on the original-language words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Your stated reasoning suggests no consistent standard to apply justly concerning how to translate the original-language words of God.

It is a fact that the KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture, many times the KJV adds words for which it has no original-language word of Scripture, and it also may use several English words for one original-language word or one English word for several original-language words. The KJV does not always provide a literal, word-for-word translation.

Would you be ok with the Church of England makers of the KJV superimposing Church of England doctrinal views on to the original-language words of Scripture?

 

[JD731]

Perhaps you do not really understand what the argument is as you may jump to wrong conclusions based on your own inconsistent, subjective reasoning concerning Bible translation.

It could as easily be suggested that you seem to assert or suggest that the original-language words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are not important and not the standard, but the message as translated imperfectly in the English words of the KJV is what is important. Your focus seems to be on the English words of one translation (an inconsistent revision of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles), and not on the original-language words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Your stated reasoning suggests no consistent standard to apply justly concerning how to translate the original-language words of God.

It is a fact that the KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture, many times the KJV adds words for which it has no original-language word of Scripture, and it also may use several English words for one original-language word or one English word for several original-language words. The KJV does not always provide a literal, word-for-word translation.

Would you be ok with the Church of England makers of the KJV superimposing Church of England doctrinal views on to the original-language words of Scripture?

I am sorry. I missed where the author of this op was substituting original language in his verses in Gal 5. My bad.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I am sorry. I missed where the author of this op was substituting original language in his verses in Gal 5. My bad.

And STILL you refuse to address specific verses from Gal. 5:5-18.

 

[JD731]

And STILL you refuse to address specific verses from Gal. 5:5-18.

What do you want me to say?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

What do you want me to say?

You have issues with the translations of these verses in Gala. 5. Spell out your objections. Don't merely dismiss the subject with "I disagree." Get specific. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

 

[JD731]

You have issues with the translations of these verses in Gala. 5. Spell out your objections. Don't merely dismiss the subject with "I disagree." Get specific. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

I lost interest when it dawned on my understanding that you are only suggesting personal preferences and subjective responses to a group of translations that anyone could have produced and you are just reacting to them without making any claims for them. I regret that I was not more careful seeing as how I am a defender for anyone who has a personal opinion they want to share. Please forgive me for this error and proceed. I repent of any criticism of you and your op.

 

[robycop3]

I understand your underlying argument. You have gone to some trouble to insert certain verses from different translation to teach us that it is the message from God that is important, not the words of God. It seems you are wanting us to understand that anyone with a pencil can superimpose their own style and words and do no damage to the text. I understand what your argument is and I reject it. If you are comfortable with believing that then I am fine with you believing it. However, believing it is one thing and actively teaching it to others is quite another and if you are wrong the penalty may be greater than you have anticipated. But I say carry on. You will know if this is good teaching soon enough.

Thing is, the ACTUAL WORDS of God were not given in modern languages. He gave them to His chosen penmen in THEIR languages. Thus, modern people depend upon translations of those ancient languages into MODERN ones, and upon the HOLY SPIRIT to convey the meanings, same as the ancient readers did.

This fact isn't lost on GOD, of course, who gave us all our languages. That's why He causes His word to be translated into languages that are used now. Ancient Hebrew is little-used today, as is Aramaic. Koine Greek is not extremely different from "regular" Greek, kinda like hillbilly and formal English, but Greek isn't much-used outside of Greece & Cyprus. Thus, the vast bulk of the world's people depend upon Bible translations.

 

[JD731]

Thing is, the ACTUAL WORDS of God were not given in modern languages. He gave them to His chosen penmen in THEIR languages. Thus, modern people depend upon translations of those ancient languages into MODERN ones, and upon the HOLY SPIRIT to convey the meanings, same as the ancient readers did.

This fact isn't lost on GOD, of course, who gave us all our languages. That's why He causes His word to be translated into languages that are used now. Ancient Hebrew is little-used today, as is Aramaic. Koine Greek is not extremely different from "regular" Greek, kinda like hillbilly and formal English, but Greek isn't much-used outside of Greece & Cyprus. Thus, the vast bulk of the world's people depend upon Bible translations.

Chapter and verse from any translation or manuscripts for any of your rhetoric. I am thinking now that you view yourself as a prophet.

 

[robycop3]

Chapter and verse from any translation or manuscripts for any of your rhetoric. I am thinking now that you view yourself as a prophet.

1 Cor. 14:9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.

Easy, wasn't it?

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read a Bible completely, or paid attention to what you've read. Then, of course, there's the school of COMMON SENSE. If I want to witness to a Japanese who knows no English, how can I, who knows no Japanese, present the Gospel to him?