Translation problem Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

[StefanM]

Then what should be the acceptable translation?

IMO, "died."

 

[TCGreek]

Naw, he was just speaking grammar. :laugh:

Hey, John--just some grammar. :laugh:

 

[Salamander]

I believe it is the word of God expressing the importance of why Christ died and that this same Jesus, although we refer to Him as Jesus Christ and also Christ Jesus, is alive and that Christ is dead as he being the crucified one.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I see this as yet another example of how English has changed.

Christ is dead in vain.
Christ's death was in vain
Christ died in vain

does it really matter?

I think those of us who do not speak or properly understand 17th English can be too quick to accuse the guys who did of making mistakes with the language they knew.

 

[Armchair Scholar]

Galatians 2:21 in the KJV reads:

"I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

"Is dead" is the translation of απεθανεν--an aorist verb.

Why did the KJV translators render this "is dead" instead of "died"?

There is a major difference between the two.

Perhaps those among the translators who were Anglo-Catholics, such as Lancelot and Roger Andrewes, thought this verse pertained to their Eucharist where Christ is literally in the bread, crucified/re-crucified, and dead.

 

[Armchair Scholar]

I see this as yet another example of how English has changed.

Christ is dead in vain.
Christ's death was in vain
Christ died in vain

does it really matter?

It might matter to people who are reading the Bible for the first time in their life and that Bible happens to contain 17th century Jacobean English.

 

[StefanM]

I see this as yet another example of how English has changed.

Christ is dead in vain.
Christ's death was in vain
Christ died in vain

does it really matter?

I think those of us who do not speak or properly understand 17th English can be too quick to accuse the guys who did of making mistakes with the language they knew.

Then why did the Geneva Bible say "died"?

 

[Salamander]

Can anyone show us any real difference? "Is dead" and died are the same as Pastor_Bob already stated, but talk about dragging a dead horse!:laugh: The horse is dead, and for those who are having trouble understanding, the horse DIED!

 

[StefanM]

Can anyone show us any real difference? "Is dead" and died are the same as Pastor_Bob already stated, but talk about dragging a dead horse!:laugh: The horse is dead, and for those who are having trouble understanding, the horse DIED!

But that only is accurate for something that has died in the past and is still dead at present.

Christ is RISEN! He is not dead! :jesus:

 

[Salamander]

But that only is accurate for something that has died in the past and is still dead at present.

Christ is RISEN! He is not dead! :jesus:

Um, just as Galatians 2:21 states contrary to keeping the law.

Galatians 2:21 has to be taken in context or your insinuation causes the guilt of stealing away from the word of God.

 

[StefanM]

Um, just as Galatians 2:21 states contrary to keeping the law.

Galatians 2:21 has to be taken in context or your insinuation causes the guilt of stealing away from the word of God.

I am not stealing away from the word of God. IMO, the KJV mistranslated this verb. You think that the KJV is flawless, and that is your prerogative. I disagree.

I agree, context matters. But, there exists nothing in Greek or otherwise that would indicate the Paul intended to argue that the conclusion of his argument would not only entail that Christ had died for no reason but that he had not been raised.

 

[Rippon]

The first four are done with just slight modernizing .

Wycliffe ( 1395 ) : ... then Christ died in vain .

Tyndale ( 1526 ) : ... then Christ died in vain .

Coverdale ( 1535 ) : ... then Christ died in vain .

Geneva ( 1587 ) : ... then Christ died without a cause .

Daniel Mace N.T. ( 1729 ) : ... Christ died to no purpose .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Then why did the Geneva Bible say "died"?

Good question. Perhaps they were commended to follow the Bishop's Bible where possible?

"Christe is dead in vayne."

 

[Salamander]

I am not stealing away from the word of God. IMO, the KJV mistranslated this verb. You think that the KJV is flawless, and that is your prerogative. I disagree.

I agree, context matters. But, there exists nothing in Greek or otherwise that would indicate the Paul intended to argue that the conclusion of his argument would not only entail that Christ had died for no reason but that he had not been raised.

Else Christ is dead in vain/Else Christ died in vain say the same thing as Pastor_Bob already stated.


I don't think you really meant the following,"there exists nothing in Greek or otherwise that would indicate that Paul intended to argue that the conclusion of his argument would not only entail that Christ had died for no reason but that he had not been raised".

You're way off on the deep end with that one. The text is clear.

 

[StefanM]

Good question. Perhaps they were commended to follow the Bishop's Bible where possible?

"Christe is dead in vayne."

I'm sure that's why the KJV translators used "is dead," but the correct rendering (IMO) clearly was utilized during that time period. It's not simply a matter of changing language.

 

[Salamander]

Another totally useless thread used to attack the KJB.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm sure that's why the KJV translators used "is dead," but the correct rendering (IMO) clearly was utilized during that time period. It's not simply a matter of changing language.

Your point is well taken. However, I still think we err when we jump to the conclusion that a mistake was made simply because it doesn't look right to us.

I wish we could think with 17th century minds so that we could know that that meant when they read it. But we can't, and therefore, because of the excellent track record of the KJV translators I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[StefanM]

Else Christ is dead in vain/Else Christ died in vain say the same thing as Pastor_Bob already stated.


I don't think you really meant the following,"there exists nothing in Greek or otherwise that would indicate that Paul intended to argue that the conclusion of his argument would not only entail that Christ had died for no reason but that he had not been raised".

You're way off on the deep end with that one. The text is clear.

Sorry for the typo.

Otherwise I stand by the statement. Paul's argument referred to the purpose of the death of Christ, not the fact of the resurrection.

The constructions "is dead" and "died" do not mean the same thing. In general usage, however, they will most likely both be accurate. With Christ, however, they are not. Christ died. He is not dead because he is risen.

 

[Rippon]

I'm sure that's why the KJV translators used "is dead," but the correct rendering (IMO) clearly was utilized during that time period. It's not simply a matter of changing language.

The KJV messed-up on that one . Even the 2nd Wycliffe Bible written 216 before the 1611 had it right . The KJV revisors made the wording too complicated by following the Bishop's Bible here ( and elsewhere ) . Again the superiority of the original Tyndale translation is seen with its clear and direct English . Go William !!

 

[StefanM]

Another totally useless thread used to attack the KJB.

Why not just state the position you hold?

1) The KJV is perfect.

2) Therefore, there are no translation errors.

3) Therefore, this is not a translation error.