Cross Reference
New member
I never used the word "arrogance" or "arrogant" which shows my perception of you that you think to highly of yourself is accurate. Thanks.
ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
I never used the word "arrogance" or "arrogant" which shows my perception of you that you think to highly of yourself is accurate. Thanks.
Right Divider
Body part
Oh, sorry.... "you do take yourself far to seriously" is what I perceived as you saying "arrogance". Was I way off?
I know you are but what am I
The meltdown is underway :chuckle: - What a maroon !
Cross Reference
New member
No. You are right on the money. You are one of the most conceited immature people, I have ever read. What your foundation for expounding on any scripture is at best, empty of insight-understanding because of your personal religous bent, whatever it is if not your flesh occupied cockles of you mind..
Cross Reference
New member
Cross Reference
New member
I think he said that, didn't he?
Right Divider
Body part
I would expect nothing less from someone of your extremely limited capacity.
This schizoid pair's language argument (Aletheiophile and PPS) is fool's gold; at best.
Had Israel obeyed in earlier centuries - none of them would have even been speaking Greek to begin with.
Had Israel obeyed centuries earlier, there would not even have even been the need to "render to Caesar, that which is Caesar's..."
Not to mention that in Acts 2's Pentecost, it was not Greek that God the Spirit chose to speak in the Twelve through.
In short, Greek was what was the vulgar tongue of the day.
And God, being Dispensational; went with it, towards His purpose...
Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
Aletheiophile
New member
I did not word my post about tradition quite right. The original manuscripts were in Hebrew and Greek, and the authority of those upheld by tradition. Does that better express my point? Of course the scriptures do not explicitly say that any language was chosen. Yet, the evidence and accepted historical doctrine is that those languages have a priveleged position.
Is that a better way to put it?
Chapter, verse, for this satanic "original manuscripts only-ism."
Scripture always refers to copies. Of course, the fact that that the doctrine of the preservation of the scriptures, would be quite superfluous, and the LORD God would be a moron, if "original manuscripts only-ism" were true, does not even enter the mind of bible agnostics/correctors/mystics.
Tell us, Al-how would you know if you had these "original manuscripts," even if they were allegedly dropped in your lap?
Straight jacket time...brain spill, aisle 2....
Aletheiophile
New member
Do you not see that everything you say about the Greek text denies the foundation of your precious KJV? Or whichever translation you use. It is a higher-critical view that denies that authority of scripture. It is like saying "I like steak, but we have no need for cows." It only proves your ignorance of how the text was maintained, collated, distributed, and translated.
It contradicts your need for proof-texting. Proof-texting is irrelevant if you do not respect the text.
You Bible-only folks will not own up to your own presuppositions when reading the text. You enter scripture with a grid already in place, and that is what you see. So it doesn't matter what language - you only see what you want to see, and pull together verses for that purpose. Congratulations. The Talmudists do that too, twisting scripture since before Christ even walked the earth. Fun crowd.
Cross Reference
New member
Will you give your opinion without searching to find which rendering belong to what translation? Be honest in this, please.
Which would you say is the best, most accurate, translation? Please given your reason
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
Galatians 2:20
I'd say that they are both basically equally good translations. Maybe the first eeks out a win over the later but only slightly. "The faith of the Son" is a better rendering than "by faith in the Son". But even that is only a personal opinion based on other theological issues taught elsewhere. Based on the Greek words themselves, it can be rightly translated either way.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't think that there was anything special about languages themselves, which seems to still be what you're saying.
What evidence? What historical doctrine? Those are man-made conventions that prove nothing.
If God showed, in scripture, that these languages were specially chosen... then you might have a point. But He does not.
Aletheiophile
New member
First of all, I would say that God being sovereign, someone seeking the truth from the depths of their heart will not be hindered by English. (That is to say, it is not impossible to understand via English, simply limited.)
But truly I would say I prefer the first translation.
1. The first verb is in the perfect, so although "am" and "have been" both translate the perfect just fine, "am" more closely renders the verb as being accomplished and then stative. (This would be a Hebraism, using the perfect to represent an accomplished state.) The rest of that first phrase is roughly comparable.
2. The second translation is missing the "which", which is present in the Greek, and specifies the life being discussed, namely that which is in the flesh.
3. The second translation says faith "in" the Son of God, while the former says "of." Technically, we are in Christ, so the "in" is not theologically incorrect, but it is lexically incorrect. Son of God is in Genitive, thus marking possessor and source. The faith is His, and He is the source of it. And although faith is anarthrous in that phrase, because Son of God is articular, faith is thus by proxy articular (another Hebraism.) Thus, "by the faith of the Son of God" would be the correct rendering.
Have I answered your request?
Aletheiophile
New member
Except your reading scripture according to a modern presupposition not found in the historical church. Bible-only reading of scripture is only found in the past 2 centuries. Not even Luther read scripture that way. The constant "Well if the Bible says..." Is a false way of evaluating the legitimacy of a stance.
Yet, there is something special about the language themselves. Historical, ancient Hebrew was a much more expressive language than any we have today. The very sounds themselves held meaning, not only the compilation of sounds in words. The language was quite possibly tonal, and thus the language melodically expressed meaning. As Tambora has mentioned, it was more concrete, and as a result of being less abstract was more accessible and more intimately experienced.
The benefit of Greek is that it has a scientific-like precision. If Hebrew paints a beautiful picture, Greek executes perfect surgery and algorithms. Greek can be broken down to a specific expressive meaning with many parts.
The beauty of English is that it can do both of those things. The problem is when translations attempt to mimic the source language, rather than use the tools of the target translation. And thus meaning is lost from the original, as well as the potential for meaning in the target language. English is not awful. And it is not impossible to render scripture in English. But it must be done according to English, and not basic nominal word for word translations that attempt to be something it is not.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
They're too arrogant to ever see this and be able to acquiesce to anything but their own nominal and shallow opinions as truth and fact.
Isn't this the most oblivious audience you've ever seen? And they have no desire whatsoever for truth. They love it not.
They are beyond persuasion. In their arrogant ignorance, they know it all; and they despise anyone who actually knows according to oida and epignosis knowledge, the latter of which love abounds in.
I'd bet you know exactly what I mean by that if you're an accomplished linguist. It's actually quite simple if one is not subject to the English-driven false patterns of the heart and mind.
Cross Reference
New member
Beautifully! However, many would say that you are playing with words; they both mean the same. Of course this opinion would be exercised by lovers of the new translations supposely written by Greek scholars that give them such trust in rejecting criticism and, of course, they are an easier read 'which/that/now' is really the primary reason of their acceptance.
I don't know the Greek or Hebrew that persuades you to believe for the 1st translation, if it does at all. Can you tell me why I would otherwise choose it to be what Paul confessed of himself? You profess to be a Greek/Hebrew scholar. But why should anyone receive from you and not the others? Tough question, I know. I trust you for a tough answer. Here is what I am getting at:
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
Galatians 2:20
Which of the 2 translations above best exudes Paul’s confidence from Himself that he could say this:
“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” . . Philippians 1:6
What translation am I taking to myself that brings, what I believe to be, the intended understanding to my heart?
OMT: Are you and PneumaPsucheSoma of the same religious persuasion?
Last edited:
Aletheiophile
New member
Reasonable question. Although I do study the languages, I do not place myself as authority. My heart is to place that authority in the text, which is simple to understand with lexical aids and an interlinear dictionary. My heart is that others would discover just how accessible it is, and find the truth by accessing the depths of language. And when it comes to translation, it's not about which scholar is better. Most translations try to make English copy the original language, and in doing so are losing the potential of English. So it's not about the scholar, it's about the missed opportunity in English expressive capability.
As you said above, both translations are functional and get the basic meaning across. But it is not the translated word that is responsible for giving faith/confidence, but the very Spirit and Word of God that persuades. If someone has ears to hear, they will hear and believe regardless of translation.
Technically, according to my previous analysis, the first translation should inspire more confidence according to the second verse given. {i]However,[/i] it does not matter if the individual does not have ears to hear. If the reader is going to splice the text to put doctrine together, then they are already self-determining the meaning of the text, rather than submitting to the text. Splicing together texts in a midrashic manner does not necessarily imply spiritual knowledge or discernment, merely that one knows how to find key words and phrases to express their own ideas.
I know many people IRL who eat up the scriptures, but then run off chasing encounter and experience and declare God to be some abstract mystical love-force who doesn't care for purity of doctrine or truth, only "love."
The problem with English is its misuse. The KJV was translated very exactly 400 years ago, but the sense of that translation has been mostly lost. Key words have been redefined. As stated: Love. Love (Agap)is the benevolent directive of the will (with delight) to do what is best for someone, what they need, not necessarily what they want. The modern concept of love is a subjective, ego-centric pathos, relating to people based on a subjective need/desire for them, not for the other person. It's pseudo-tolerance and nominal niceity for an appearance of function, that is only dysfunction because it does not give anyone what they need: the death and resurrection of Christ.
So could the first translation potentially be more functional in expressing the confidence of Paul exuded in Philippians? Yeah, quite possibly. But if people don't know what love means, don't know what it means to die, what life is, or what faith is, then it doesn't matter. Most people with leave with their own presuppositions in tact.
Yes, it would seem so. I agree with most everything I've seen him write.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The details of words are not the only direction to go to arrive at a text's meaning. A person has to know some issues/movements of the day. Gal 2 for ex. is spoken at Judaism as Paul knew it. Phil 3 is as well. Gal 2 is even more specific with the confrontation episode.