To Be or Not To Be: That is the question of James 2:5

[Van]

But most of those translations do not put it in italics. Formal equivalent and functional equivalent translate it the same way so why do you think that it is incorrect? Do you know better than all of the scholars? They literally all disagree with you from both sides of the theological spectrum.

The ESV does not put "to be" in italics, but the NKJV does, and the NASB does. The KJV does not insert "to be." Italics lets the reader know "to be" is not in the inspired text.

 

[Reformed1689]

The ESV does not put "to be" in italics, but the NKJV does, and the NASB does. The KJV does not insert "to be." Italics lets the reader know "to be" is not in the inspired text.

Ok, you aren't dealing with the actual question. Why do all Greek scholars translate it "to be rich" if that is not what it MEANS?

 

[Van]

Ok, you aren't dealing with the actual question. Why do all Greek scholars translate it "to be rich" if that is not what it MEANS?

Again, a wasted post. Does anyone believe "all Greek scholars translate the verse "to be rich" when the Greek scholars of the KJV did not?

 

[Reformed1689]

Again, a wasted post. Does anyone believe "all Greek scholars translate the verse "to be rich" when the Greek scholars of the KJV did not?

Fine, all Greek scholars except KJV. I was referring to modern. So again, are you saying every modern Greek Scholar doesn't know what they are talking about?

Of course, I have already shown that the semantic domain includes "to be rich" as the plausible definition.

 

[Logos1560]

James 2:5 in the 1560 Geneva Bible

Hearken my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they should be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?

James 2:5 in Bishops' Bible

Hearken, my dear beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they might be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which he promised to them that love him?

 

[Yeshua1]

@Van

Regarding James 2:5, do you really think someone is rich in faith before salvation? The answer to that is no. There is none that love God before salvation (Romans 3).

Furthermore, let's look at the Greek. The word for "rich" πλούσιος literally means "to being plentifully supplied with." So you can literally say, "has God not chosen those poor in the world to be plentifully supplied with faith"

So no, it is not changing any meaning to add the words "to be." If anything, it makes the meaning MORE CLEAR and accurate. It is MORE literal than the translations you supplied as a reference. But again, Romans 3 makes clear that there are none that seek after God. So how can they already be rich in faith? That makes no sense biblically and it also makes no sense grammatically.

van is not addressing this per the greek, as he tends to always address from the point of view of his "good Theology", and our Bogus one!

 

[Yeshua1]

Fine, all Greek scholars except KJV. I was referring to modern. So again, are you saying every modern Greek Scholar doesn't know what they are talking about?

Of course, I have already shown that the semantic domain includes "to be rich" as the plausible definition.

the Greek scholars that agree with van are expert, those who do not aren't per him!

 

[Yeshua1]

James 2:5 in the 1560 Geneva Bible

Hearken my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they should be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?

James 2:5 in Bishops' Bible

Hearken, my dear beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they might be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which he promised to them that love him?

Which rendering do you prefer?

 

[Van]

Fine, all Greek scholars except KJV. I was referring to modern. So again, are you saying every modern Greek Scholar doesn't know what they are talking about?

Of course, I have already shown that the semantic domain includes "to be rich" as the plausible definition.

If your view is that "to be" was required, as opposed to "yet" or "as" by the Greek, it is nonsense.

 

[Reformed1689]

If your view is that "to be" was required, as opposed to "yet" or "as" by the Greek, it is nonsense.

Every Greek scholar today disagrees with you. What makes you right and them wrong?

 

[Yeshua1]

Every Greek scholar today disagrees with you. What makes you right and them wrong?

His theology, as they hold to "bogus Theology"

 

[McCree79]

Just playing out the conclusion of one poster. If the poor are chosen because they are rich in faith....then they were also chosen because they were already heirs to the Kingdom. If we do not allow "to be" then the poor were already heirs before they were elected. If they were saved before elected, then what are they elected into? How does one possess salvation before actually being saved?

πλουσίους ἐν πίστει καὶ κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας

"Rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom"

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[/b][/b]

 

[Van]

Every Greek scholar today disagrees with you. What makes you right and them wrong?

Every Greek scholar?

 

[Reformed1689]

Every Greek scholar?

Fine, the vast majority seeing as how every major English translation, except the KJV, has that rendering. Even English translations before the KJV have that rendering as has been shown to you.

 

[Van]

Fine, the vast majority seeing as how every major English translation, except the KJV, has that rendering. Even English translations before the KJV have that rendering as has been shown to you.

Not the issue. The "to be" is added to the text, not because of Greek grammar, so the "scholar" support is non existent. A word or phrase is not needed to be added, as demonstrated by the KJV. The addition alters the message, corrupting the text. "Yet" OTOH makes the message clear.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not the issue. The "to be" is added to the text, not because of Greek grammar, so the "scholar" support is non existent. A word or phrase is not needed to be added, as demonstrated by the KJV. The addition alters the message, corrupting the text. "Yet" OTOH makes the message clear.

Yet doesn't make it more clear. That makes it more clear according to your theology. Wrong theology.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not the issue. The "to be" is added to the text, not because of Greek grammar, so the "scholar" support is non existent. A word or phrase is not needed to be added, as demonstrated by the KJV. The addition alters the message, corrupting the text. "Yet" OTOH makes the message clear.

Furthermore, why add yet if not add to be? You have a double standard Van. Wake up.

 

[Van]

Yet doesn't make it more clear. That makes it more clear according to your theology. Wrong theology.

Yet another "taint so" post. How does James 2:5 read in YLT? Weymouth New Testament? Websters Bible Translation? Darby Bible Translation? Douay - Rheims Bible? American King James Version? KJ2000 Bible? Aramaic Bible in Plain English? Contemporary English Version?

Altering the text to agree with doctrine is without merit, "yet" does not alter the meaning, it agrees with the actual text as found in 10 or so versions. "To be" reverses the meaning to conform to an interpretation of another scripture, which of course is errant.

 

[Reformed1689]

which of course is errant.

In your (wrong) OPINION

 

[Van]

According to some, it is not wrong to reverse the meaning of bible text. Go figure