Gods Word Translation

[Van]

I think the GW translation is very poor. It cooks many verses in favor of the traditions of men. But it did do an accurate job of John 3:16.

And I have no problem with Philippians 2:7, "like other humans" needs clarification, but so does "being born in the likeness of men" (ESV)

But take a look at Revelation 17:8, "“You saw the beast which once was, is no longer, and will come from the bottomless pit and go to its destruction. Those living on earth, whose names were not written in the Book of Life when the world was created, will be surprised when they see the beast because it was, is no longer, and will come again.

This puts the writing, or more accurately the non-writing, as occurring when the world was created. However, the names were written, or more accurately not written, from the foundation of the world. This span thus includes creation but extends to any time from or since or after creation. So the NASB, HCSB, and NET. Also, the NKJV and WEB. Therefore by changing "from" (apo in the Greek) to when (hote in the Greek) they put the name writing all at the same time before we live our lives. Thus cooking the books for Calvinism.

 

[Yeshua1]

You beat me to it. Just which original texts are they referring to? LOL

the very Ones that the Apostles wrote down, and that the copies were made off from for us?

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the GW translation is very poor. It cooks many verses in favor of the traditions of men. But it did do an accurate job of John 3:16.

And I have no problem with Philippians 2:7, "like other humans" needs clarification, but so does "being born in the likeness of men" (ESV)

But take a look at Revelation 17:8, "“You saw the beast which once was, is no longer, and will come from the bottomless pit and go to its destruction. Those living on earth, whose names were not written in the Book of Life when the world was created, will be surprised when they see the beast because it was, is no longer, and will come again.

This puts the writing, or more accurately the non-writing, as occurring when the world was created. However, the names were written, or more accurately not written, from the foundation of the world. This span thus includes creation but extends to any time from or since or after creation. So the NASB, HCSB, and NET. Also, the NKJV and WEB. Therefore by changing "from" (apo in the Greek) to when (hote in the Greek) they put the name writing all at the same time before we live our lives. Thus cooking the books for Calvinism.

So all of those scholars who chose to translate it that way did it due to a calvinistic bias in their views, wanted to give us calvinistic doctrines inthe text? Even though their translators were cals/ involved?

 

[Van]

How about this. I will list 5 versions where apo is translated from (or after or since) and you provide a list where apo is translated as when.

Here is my list, NASB, NKJV, WEB, HCSB, KJV, and NET. Oops 6 versions of Revelation 17:8. So all of those scholars who chose to translate it the way they did are telling you the GW rewrites scripture. Now if the GW translators had wanted to translate the thought using modern language, the "from the creation of the world" would have done it nicely. But no....

BTW, are we saved through faith or because of faith? Does our faith need to meet some standard of excellence, because we believe all the right things, God saves us? Just asking.

 

[Yeshua1]

How about this. I will list 5 versions where apo is translated from (or after or since) and you provide a list where apo is translated as when.

Here is my list, NASB, NKJV, WEB, HCSB, KJV, and NET. Oops 6 versions of Revelation 17:8. So all of those scholars who chose to translate it the way they did are telling you the GW rewrites scripture. Now if the GW translators had wanted to translate the thought using modern language, the "from the creation of the world" would have done it nicely. But no....

BTW, are we saved through faith or because of faith? Does our faith need to meet some standard of excellence, because we believe all the right things, God saves us? Just asking.

saved by the death of Jesus as atonement/propiation for iur sins, and faith means God ordained to have us receive that grace!

 

[Van]

Yes or no:

Yes we are saved by grace through faith.

No we are not saved by graced because of faith.

No one translates apo as when except the liberal translators of the GW.

Scripture reads, from the creation of the world, or since the foundation of the world, etc etc. The GW is a contrived translation to bolster mistaken doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes or no:

Yes we are saved by grace through faith.

No we are not saved by graced because of faith.

No one translates apo as when except the liberal translators of the GW.

Scripture reads, from the creation of the world, or since the foundation of the world, etc etc. The GW is a contrived translation to bolster mistaken doctrine.

The basis of our salvation is the death of Jesus on the Cross, and faith is what accesses that grace, so garcesaves, but faith gets us to that grace....

 

[Eliyahu]

I tried to post the following where Post # 18 is located but encountered the repeated errors.


Acts 8:37 is one of the verses by which we can evaluate the principles of the translation of the versions.

The passage AC 8:36-40 tells us about

1) Infant Baptism contradicted

2) Baptismal Regeneration contradicted

3) Baptism by Immersion, Believers' Baptism, Not by sprinkling

4) Non- Clergy Baptism as Philip was neither a pastor nor priest but a deacon

5) Eunuch can be a wrong translation because Jewish tradition didn't allow the de-masculine-ated person to worship at the temple ( Deut 23:1)

6) Manuscripts underlying KJV are superior to others, at least in this case.

But without Acts 8:37, the defense of Infant Baptism is much easier.

 

[Van]

The basis of our salvation is the death of Jesus on the Cross, and faith is what accesses that grace, so grace saves, but faith gets us to that grace....

Discussion with Yeshua1 is like playing dodge ball. The question for this thread, i.e. the bogus translations in the GW, is "are we saved through faith," or "are we saved because of faith." Pick one. Stop dodging truth. It is a simple question, why not just answer it. Just open your NASB, read Ephesians 2:8 and vote that way. LOL

 

[Van]

The GW is a poor translation, full of rewrites to pour man-made doctrine into the text.

 

[CraigAS]

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Philpppians 2:6 KJB

Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. Philpppians 2:6 GW

GW places a period at the end of 2:6. There is not a period there, because this statement in 2:6 (begun in 2:5) doesn't conclude til the end of 2:8.

GW reads like a commentary on 2:6, and a rather poor commentary, in my opinion.

The plain reading of 2:6, in the real Word of God, is foundational, Christ's equality with God, and it states that Christ knew that His equality with God takes nothing away from God.

GW, by calling itself 'God's Word' perverts that statement. If the 'translator(s)' called it a commentary, then it would simply be a poor commentary, but they place it before us as 'God's Word'.

It is not as blatant and vile a perversion as the ones that say Christ gave up His equality with God...

who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped Philpppians 2:6 ASV

The ASV and MANY other modern perversions say that Christ gave up (ungrasped) His equality with God when He took on the form of a servant.

That vile perversion is a lie from the pit!

 

[InTheLight]

GW places a period at the end of 2:6. There is not a period there, because this statement in 2:6 (begun in 2:5) doesn't conclude til the end of 2:8.

A period at that point makes more sense than the KJV having three verses in a row ending with a colon.

The ASV and MANY other modern perversions say that Christ gave up (ungrasped) His equality with God when He took on the form of a servant.

You are misinterpreting the meaning of the phrase 'not to be grasped'. In this context it means that Christ didn't use his deity to his advantage.

This verse is an excellent example of the KJV's use of archaic language causing confusion in interpretation-- "thought it not robbery" makes zero sense to contemporary readers. Also the KJV dilutes Christ's deity by saying Jesus "was in the form of God". Really? The "form" of God?

The NIV absolutely nails it on this verse:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

 

[Yeshua1]

No!

The various transaltions are stating to us that while Jesus was fully God, he did not "cling" to just staying in heaven as God, but lowered Himself by the Incarnation to being BOTh God and man!