Vague Translations, Poor Translations and Mistranslations

[Van]

Returning to topic:
An "antecedent" of a pronoun is the specific person, place, thing or idea to which the pronoun refers. For example,
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [fn]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
In the above verse two pronouns (that and it) refer to a vague antecedent. The footnote in the NASB identifies that the antecedent is "salvation" but plenty of Calvinist writers claim the antecedent includes faith as a gift. (The other pronoun "it" has been added, thus in italics, to smooth out the sentence.)

Here I think the translators missed a bet, as instead of adding another vague pronoun (it) they could have added in italics "salvation." Thus the verse might be translated as "For by grace you have been saved by means of faith; and that not of yourselves, salvation is the gift of God. An even better translation choice would be to find the actual antecedent of "that" which is "gift." Thus the verse, properly and contextually translated might read, "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

RR now claims his mind reading ability includes "any legitimate translator." No kidding

No mind reading is required to determine that your 'translations' are certainly heterodox, obtuse, absurd, funny and ungrammatical to boot.

 

[Van]

No mind reading is required to determine that your 'translations' are certainly heterodox, obtuse, absurd, funny and ungrammatical to boot.

Note that RR posts are "certainly heterodox, obtuse, absurd," obnoxious and meritless to boot.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic:

Improved and clarified translations:

1) Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

2) 1Corinthians 2:14: "But an unspiritual person does not accept the solid food things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him or her; and he or she cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Romans 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD when sinning:

4) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

5) James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Note that RR posts are ...

Pointing out your deeply flawed errors snip.

 

[Van]

Let us consider John 6:37:
NASB1995
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

As usual when we ask, "all" of what, the answer is "everyone." So "Everyone the Father...."

"Gives Me" is usually thought to mean those designated for salvation, but it appears to refer to the action of giving with the result of arriving.

Thus we have, Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me....

Next we have the one who comes indicating a possible passive action, thus

and the one transferred to Me...

I will never cast out.

Putting the verse back together we get as a less ambiguous verse, Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me, and the one transferred to Me, I will never cast out.

 

[Van]

Improved and clarified translations:

1) Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

2) 1Corinthians 2:14: "But an unspiritual person does not accept the solid foods of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him or her; and he or she cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Romans 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD when sinning:

4) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

5) James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

6) John 6:37: "Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me, and the one transferred to Me, I will never cast out.

 

[Van]

Sometimes the scope or extent of a statement is not clear. Does "the things" refer to everything imaginable or to only the things contextually in view? 1 Corinthians 2:14 is a case in point. The natural man, referring to the lost that have not been born anew and indwelt, cannot understand "the things" of the Spirit of God. Does this specify "all the things" or "some of the things?" No.

So we must look at the context and how the flow of thought in the passage (explanation) is being presented. Three verses later, 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul speaks to new Christians "as men of flesh" again referring to the lost without the indwelt Spirit. He uses "spiritual milk" but not "spiritual solid food (meat)." Thus contextually "the things" refer to "the spiritual solid foods." If this was specified with the translation of 1 Corinthians 2:14, a whole basis for mistaken doctrine would be eliminated

 

[RipponRedeaux]

1 Corinthians 2:14 is a case in point. The natural man, referring to the lost that have not been born anew and indwelt, cannot understand "the things" of the Spirit of God.
Three verses later, 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul speaks to new Christians "as men of flesh" again referring to the lost without the indwelt Spirit. He uses "spiritual milk" but not "spiritual solid food (meat)." Thus contextually "the things" refer to "the spiritual solid foods."

You got some things right and you certainly got some things wrong. In 1 Cor. 2:14 the people referred to are not believers. They are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, as you said. They are lost folks.
But in 1 Cor. 3:1 the people here are worldly Christians. In fact they are infants in Christ --or as the KJV words it --babes in Christ. They are born again. They are in Christ. However, they must grow spiritually. They should be on solid food, but they are still on milk. As babies in Christ they are in the same condition as those in Eph. 4:14 who are infants in the Lord.
Notice 1 Cor. 3:16 : "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple? Don't you know that God's Spirit lives in you? (NIrV). Those words cannot be said of unbelievers.

You have to distinguish categories. The folks in 1 Cor. 2:14 are unsaved. In all of chapter 3 of 1 Cor. all of the folks are believers. That's a big difference.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

John 6:37: "Everyone the Father gives will arrive within Me, and the one transferred to Me, I will never cast out.

Let's take one verse at a time. How did you arrive (pun intended) at your translation? What New Testament commentary, book of theology or whatever led you to to so drastically alter the understanding of that verse?

Is there a single Bible scholar or study aid that led you down that path? Does your pastor endorse that view? Have you shared any of your personal 'translations' with him?

If you have no one else to support your view, why would anyone trust your version of things? Just on your say-so? That's weak. You have to have some kind of solid foundation to support (let's be honest) your novel interpretation.

 

[Van]

You got some things right SNIP

Paul spoke to the new Christians "as to men of flesh," or in the same way he spoke to those not born anew.
No matter how often this truth is sidestepped in is there, in black and white, in God's printed word, in 1 Corinthians 3:1. To deny this verse teaches that men of flesh can understand and affirm the spiritual milk of the gospel is poppycock.

 

[Van]

Let's take one verse at a time. SNIP

This poster did not look at the Greek word translated as arrive within to see if that meaning is cited in lexicons. He did not address how someone will not be cast out, unless they arrived within.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Paul spoke to the new Christians "as to men of flesh," or in the same way he spoke to those not born anew.
No matter how often this truth is sidestepped in is there, in black and white, in God's printed word, in 1 Corinthians 3:1. To deny this verse teaches that men of flesh can understand and affirm the spiritual milk of the gospel is poppycock.

You are completely wrong. again, you need to distinguish between the two classes of people. You seem to have no discernment. In 1 Cor. 2:14 the people are not believers. It can't be made any more plain. The Holy Spirit does not indwell them. They are not in Christ.
In chapter three, the entire chapter, if you would simply read the complete chapter, believers are addressed. They are infants in Christ. (See 3:1)Their maturity is at a low level, yet they are indeed Christians. Look at first 23 at the end of the chapter. "And you are of Christ, and Christ is of God." That cannot be said of unbelievers. You need to be a Berean Van.

 

[Van]

You are completely wrong. again, SNIP

Naysayers are a dime a dozen, offering nothing except "taint so."
Did I distinguish that speaking "as to men of flesh" referred to speaking to those not born anew? Yes
Did Paul indicate he used "spiritual milk" to speak with "men of flesh?" Yes
Was any of this obvious truth addressed? Go figure...

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Naysayers are a dime a dozen, offering nothing except "taint so."

Don't fib Van. My post was distinguishing, on biblical grounds, things that you have no desire to even comment on, much less acknowledge. It would put your position on dangerous ground.

Let's cut to the chase. In 1 Cor. 2:14 those described are non-believers --the Holy Spirit does not dwell in them
In 1 Cor. 3:1, and the rest of the chapter, all are Christians. And as I mentioned earlier, they are in Christ, though infants in Him. Paul says to all of these infants in the Lord --"and you are of Christ." It cannot be said that those targeted in 1 Cor. 2:14 that they are of Christ.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Note that RR posts are "certainly heterodox, obtuse, absurd," obnoxious and meritless to boot.

You are plagiarizing again Van.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

On BibleGateway, the overwhelming majority of translations have "to be rich in faith." But you ruin that by sticking an unwarranted word in there. The phrase in question should be "Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith." Or, simply "Hasn't God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith."
However, you have interrupted Paul's flow to insert the completely unnecessary word "yet" which is uncalled for. There is no adversative (kai) in the text. You added it because you thought you'd help Paul out. But you have done harm instead. Leave things well enough alone Van.
Not a single translation of this verse on BibleGateway has the word "yet" in the verse, or 'but" or "however" etc.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Van, your distortion of Romans 3:11 is disturbing. You worded it as "There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God when sinning."

Do you realize how heretical your 'translation' is? It is a blatant trampling of Scripture. There can be no debate or negotiating on the matter. You have added something directly contradicting the Bible. You do not have the right to insert such a blight on the Word of God. Whatever possessed you to do such a thing?

Is it possible that you don't know that Paul was quoting from the Old Testament? He quoted Psalm 14:3, 53:3 and Ecclesiastes 7:20. Do you have the audacity to change those passages too?

I looked at the 60 plus translations on BibleGateway and none add your insert. None of them add anything after the word God, with the exception of TPT which says "God alone." That's fine. The NCV and ISB end the verse with "God for help."

You need to be content to let the Lord speak without adding things contradicting Him.

 

[Van]

Note the only posters posting taint so all lean Calvinistic.
Do you realize how heretical their 'translation' is? It is a blatant trampling of Scripture. There can be no debate or negotiating on the matter. They have added something directly contradicting the Bible.They do not have the right to insert such a blight on the Word of God. Whatever possessed them to do such a thing?
They charge others with their malfeasance! Adding "to be" in James 2:5 is just dandy, but removing the message altering insert is a "blight." Do they really claim people are actually seeking God when sinning. Who knows as they avoid truth. Do they claim lexicons do not say the meaning of tasso is an arrangement by mutual consent. Who knows as they avoid truth. Calvinism pours false doctrine into vague, poor and mistranslations, thus they hide this truth with twaddle.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Note the only posters posting taint so all lean Calvinistic.

Ah, okay...What region of the world do you hail from?