NIV or ESV?

[JonC]

"The genitive construction is probably to be taken as embracing both the sense 'response which is faith' and 'obedience which stems from faith' --interchangeable ideas."
Doug Mos in his commentary on Romans takes the genitive as subjective :"obedience that flows from faith."
JohnofJapan said back on 8/7/07 regarding his Japanese translation :"I see that the committee went with the subjective genitive on Romans 1:5."
So there is good warrant for a rendering that indicates that faith produces obedience.
That's rather weak Jon.
The remaining comments of yours shows that you didn't pay attention to the quotes I provided on the subject.

Brother, examine what you have posted.

"The genitive construction is probably to be taken as embracing both the sense 'response which is faith' and 'obedience which stems from faith' --interchangeable ideas."

Yet translating it as “obedience from faith” does not even hint at embracing both senses nor does it even allow for “response which is faith.” This option is not even offered to the reader. Your comments are contradictory.
Sure it can mean (and perhaps I believe that it does mean) obedience that comes from faith, but it is not up to the translator to alter the text in such a way as to exclude another valid conclusion.

"Obedience of faith" (ESV, NASB) allows for your own statement while "obedience from faith" (NIV) denies its validity.

Look at your conclusion - “there is good warrant for a rendering that indicates that faith produces obedience.” Yet you just said it could also mean “response which is faith” or it could embrace both….perhaps in more "literal" translations but not of course in the NIV text.

 

[Van]

Lets consider three options: 1) Translate the genitive with "of" making the phrase ambiguous. (2) Translate as subjective. (3) Translate as objective.

If we look at Romans 1:5 we find the phrase, 'eis-into' 'obedience' 'of faith'

So we could translate the phrase into obedience of faith, i.e. ambiguously. Or "into the obedience faith requires. Or "into obedience to the faith."

But what if we are unsure which interpretation is correct? We should put the translation we think most probable in the main body, and footnote the alternate interpretation.

Most of the modern translation chose ambiguity, but the NIV took a stab at it, going with obedience that comes from faith. The KJV also took a stab at it, going with "for obedience to the faith." Neither provided a footnote to identify the other alternative. The NET did provide a footnote at Romans 1:5 but not at Romans 16:26.

Because Paul used similar constructions, i.e. righteousness of faith and law of faith, we can see that the NIV did indeed come up with the most probable "obedience that comes from faith," and righteousness that comes from faith, and a law that comes from faith. However, the lack of a footnote pointing to the alternate possibility leaves the student clinging to an interpretation of men.

The NIV and ESV are indeed worthless as study bibles, but are more suitable as scholarly commentary.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lets consider three options: 1) Translate the genitive with "of" making the phrase ambiguous. (2) Translate as subjective. (3) Translate as objective.

If we look at Romans 1:5 we find the phrase, 'eis-into' 'obedience' 'of faith'

So we could translate the phrase into obedience of faith, i.e. ambiguously. Or "into the obedience faith requires. Or "into obedience to the faith."

But what if we are unsure which interpretation is correct? We should put the translation we think most probable in the main body, and footnote the alternate interpretation.

Most of the modern translation chose ambiguity, but the NIV took a stab at it, going with obedience that comes from faith. The KJV also took a stab at it, going with "for obedience to the faith." Neither provided a footnote to identify the other alternative. The NET did provide a footnote at Romans 1:5 but not at Romans 16:26.

Because Paul used similar constructions, i.e. righteousness of faith and law of faith, we can see that the NIV did indeed come up with the most probable "obedience that comes from faith," and righteousness that comes from faith, and a law that comes from faith. However, the lack of a footnote pointing to the alternate possibility leaves the student clinging to an interpretation of men.

The NIV and ESV are indeed worthless as study bibles, but are more suitable as scholarly commentary.

So you do not see them as being the word of God then to us?
For ANY legit translation is profitable to use for studying, as the Holy Spirit teaches thru them, not just us!

 

[Van]

Still waiting for you, Yeshua1 to answer my one question. Until you treat others as you would have them treat you, your questions will be treated as ends driven agenda twaddle, calculated to misrepresent the views of others.

The NIV and ESV are indeed worthless as study bibles, but are more suitable as scholarly commentary.

 

[Rippon]

"The genitive construction is probably to be taken as embracing both the sense 'response which is faith' and 'obedience which stems from faith' --interchangeable ideas."

Yet translating it as “obedience from faith” does not even hint at embracing both senses nor does it even allow for “response which is faith.” This option is not even offered to the reader. Your comments are contradictory.
Sure it can mean (and perhaps I believe that it does mean) obedience that comes from faith, but it is not up to the translator to alter the text in such a way as to exclude another valid conclusion.

"Obedience of faith" (ESV, NASB) allows for your own statement while "obedience from faith" (NIV) denies its validity.

Look at your conclusion - “there is good warrant for a rendering that indicates that faith produces obedience.” Yet you just said it could also mean “response which is faith” or it could embrace both….perhaps in more "literal" translations but not of course in the NIV text.

You are under the mistaken notion that Bible translators are magicians. There are no easy choices for them on many occasions. They have to choose one option. They don't get to include two or more as the Amplified does. There is no "alteration of the text" as you foolishly claim. You really need to attitude --it's beginning to sound like those of the KJVO persuasion.

I have said that New Testament scholars are divided on this particular phrase. There are a number of passages within the canon in which there is divided scholarly opinion. But to castigate translators with "altering the text" is demeaning.

D.B. Garlington :

"The phrase upakon pistews (Romans 1:5;16:26) embodies a twin idea: the obedience consisting in faith and the obedience arising out of faith."

 

[Rippon]

You are under the mistaken notion that Bible translators are magicians. There are no easy choices for them on many occasions. They have to choose one option. They don't get to include two or more as the Amplified does. There is no "alteration of the text" as you foolishly claim.

I have said that New Testament scholars are divided on this particular phrase. There are a number of passages within the canon in which there is divided scholarly opinion. But to castigate translators with "altering the text" is demeaning.

D.B. Garlington :

"The phrase upakon pistews (Romans 1:5;16:26) embodies a twin idea: the obedience consisting in faith and the obedience arising out of faith."

Now I can't edit my posts.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Well we've spurned the normal limits on any thread, but this is getting the same stuff "over and over and over and over"

Time to pull the plug. They shoot horses, don't they?