Justification - Part 2

[ImaginaryDay2]

I disagree and so do all the scholars who worked on it.

Scholars work on many things, but if the mandate is to produce a paraphrase, that's what is produced. Many Scholars also worked on the current NIV, but there have been objections there as well.
Anyway, this is a rabbit trail of sorts

 

[RichWh1]

By your definition, only the original text is acceptable. All translations use words not found in the original.

Often when a translation has an added word they use Italics to indicate the addition to the translation for clarification. Or an asterisk * is used to indicate addition for clarification. The NLT has neither. That could be dangerous in trying to interpret a passage when words have been either altered or added.

There is disagreement when translating. How do you convey the meaning of a word that doesn't have an exact word in the foreign language. You must express the meaning with more than one word.

It is called phraseology or gleaning the meaning from the phrase in one language and figuring out its equivalent in another.

Thus, I trust versions like the NLT, which have been vetted by peer review, above individual translations of those who imagine they know greek and hebrew.

Trust it; just be cautious.

 

[MennoSota]

Scholars work on many things, but if the mandate is to produce a paraphrase, that's what is produced. Many Scholars also worked on the current NIV, but there have been objections there as well.
Anyway, this is a rabbit trail of sorts

The NLT is not a paraphrase. Look at the data at the front of an NLT Bible to see their process. It is different from that of the NASB or ESV, but it is not a paraphrase like the Message. The NLT used modern translation techniques that are universally accepted.

 

[Andrew]

Repentance will bring you to God Who will Receive you with the Gift of Salvation here and now...

You have a strange way of twisting my words...

Without citing them...

Arsenios

Hmmm... I'm not so sure of that.
Repentance as a command can not also be the commander as like the creation cannot be the creator... God wants you to repent but it is not what brings you to God, God brings you to God
However a life with Faith without ever repenting isn't faith at all, you are then a thief and a liar trying to force God to sneek you into Heaven by saying "Jesus Jesus!!"
Having Faith means you are faithful and repentance is definitely a call to action but that of course comes with grace since before all things you start of with belief/faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The NLT is not a paraphrase. Look at the data at the front of an NLT Bible to see their process. It is different from that of the NASB or ESV, but it is not a paraphrase like the Message. The NLT used modern translation techniques that are universally accepted.

The NLT is a revision of the Living Bible which is a modern English paraphrase of the ASV (American Standard Version) which used antiquated KJV-style English.

The Living Bible was not a translation from Greek and Hebrew is was just a modernised and colloquialised ASV.

The NLT does translate from Greek and Hebrew using the English language style of the Living Bible.

So you are correct that it is not a paraphrase (as was the Living Bible) but it is not a precise/literal translation either. It is in the same broad category as the New International Version which people call "functionally equivalent translation" meaning that the word order and phrasing from the Original Languages is not preserved but that their alleged meaning is preserved. Of course by preserving meaning the translators have to interpret the passage and decide what it means so the translation becomes strongly influenced by the theology and culture of the translators. The NLT is therefore not well suited for detailed study of the meaning of passages because the alleged meaning is already decided by the translators.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The NLT is not a paraphrase... It is different from that of the NASB or ESV, but it is not a paraphrase like the Message. The NLT used modern translation techniques that are universally accepted.

Earlier I'd said it was a moderate paraphrase, and I gave a link. There are others as well from Google. It's toward a more liberal end of a "functional equivalent". I do look these things up, as opposed to grasping out of the air.

Look at the data at the front of an NLT Bible to see their process.

I have. As I said, I frequently reference it. Anything can be worthwhile and edifying, even 'The Message', just be aware of what you're reading

 

[Arsenios]

God will bring you to repentance by graciously redeeming you and gifting you with faith.
You have twisted God's work in order to make it man's work.

Look out for those other three fingers!!

A.

 

[MennoSota]

Earlier I'd said it was a moderate paraphrase, and I gave a link. There are others as well from Google. It's toward a more liberal end of a "functional equivalent". I do look these things up, as opposed to grasping out of the air.



I have. As I said, I frequently reference it. Anything can be worthwhile and edifying, even 'The Message', just be aware of what you're reading

To each their own. My primary reason for using the NLT is that it's the easiest app to copy multiple verses quickly and then paste, using my mobile phone. I find that there is never a contradiction with the NASB or ESV, which are the gold standard for English translations.

 

[MennoSota]

The NLT is a revision of the Living Bible which is a modern English paraphrase of the ASV (American Standard Version) which used antiquated KJV-style English.

The Living Bible was not a translation from Greek and Hebrew is was just a modernised and colloquialised ASV.

The NLT does translate from Greek and Hebrew using the English language style of the Living Bible.

So you are correct that it is not a paraphrase (as was the Living Bible) but it is not a precise/literal translation either. It is in the same broad category as the New International Version which people call "functionally equivalent translation" meaning that the word order and phrasing from the Original Languages is not preserved but that their alleged meaning is preserved. Of course by preserving meaning the translators have to interpret the passage and decide what it means so the translation becomes strongly influenced by the theology and culture of the translators. The NLT is therefore not well suited for detailed study of the meaning of passages because the alleged meaning is already decided by the translators.

No, it's not, MC. You have incorrect information. There is no connection between the NLT and the Living Bible. Completely different organizations and approaches to translation.

 

[Arsenios]

I'm pretty sure it's the Arsenios version that has removed it to fit his dogma. Kinda like Charles Taze Russell and the JWs.

Now THAT is funny, and I'll tell you why -

When the Latin Church of the West confronted the Eastern Communion of Churches on their "VERSION" of the Creed that did not have the Filioque, they ACCUSED us, just as you are doing here to me, of SUBTRACTING the word FILIOQUE from the Creed, and here you are, having ADDED the word CHOSEN to God's Word, you are accusing me of REMOVING it from the Bible, and this even when the one asking you about it has looked at several translations and has not found the word that YOUR translation ADDS to God's Word...

So you are in very good company, I say!

I tell ya, when you ACCUSE OTHERS, ya really does gotsta duck quick with a loud quack from the return fire of those other three fingers shootin' back at ya! Paul wrote about it, you may recall...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Now THAT is funny, and I'll tell you why -

When the Latin Church of the West confronted the Eastern Communion of Churches on their "VERSION" of the Creed that did not have the Filioque, they ACCUSED us, just as you are doing here to me, of SUBTRACTING the word FILIOQUE from the Creed, and here you are, having ADDED the word CHOSEN to God's Word, you are accusing me of REMOVING it from the Bible, and this even when the one asking you about it has looked at several translations and has not found the word that YOUR translation ADDS to God's Word...

So you are in very good company, I say!

I tell ya, when you ACCUSE OTHERS, ya really does gotsta duck quick with a loud quack from the return fire of those other three fingers shootin' back at ya! Paul wrote about it, you may recall...

Arsenios

Nope. I am saying your personal translation is not as legitimate as a translation that has been vetted by peer review. For all I know you could be promoting the Cotton patch Bible. I'm saying that you aren't my gold standard for Bible translation.

 

[RichWh1]

Nope. I am saying your personal translation is not as legitimate as a translation that has been vetted by peer review. For all I know you could be promoting the Cotton patch Bible. I'm saying that you aren't my gold standard for Bible translation.

No one has a 'personal' translation. No such thing exists, except maybe the NWT of the Watchtower. That is their personal translation.

 

[Arsenios]

Yes, the Greek does move along in the direction that you've indicated. And the brief definition is very far from a discussion of how self-proclaimed-confidence-in-one's-own-election is proof of self's-status-as-elect. And once again saint James' words come to the fore a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. No one can rightly claim to be justified either "before men" or before God simply because self-claims-to-be-elect.

It is a great problem - And the answer will be found varying from one person to another... Some have had earth shaking encounters with God and think that because of that encounter with God, they MUST be one of the Elect and because it was SO earth shattering, they MUST be permanently saved BY God directly... These tend to be most humble and sensitive...

There are also those who are raised Biblical and believe the Bible as it was taught to them, and they can be more doctrinaire and bullying, because they are taking their parent's and family's word for it... Yet if faith is the basis of deeds for the obtaining of the Gift of God, then without DEEDS, there is no faith... And the conclusion is, Faith and deeds are one thing... And James states the relationship clearly when he states that faith and works of faith work together, synergize, and that it is the works of faith that perfect the faith that is working...

And a faith not working is dead... Yet even this can have exceptions, when works are no longer possible to the person who would do them if he or she could... But for us all here, we repent unto the Kingdom of God, that we attain that Kingdom, given to us by Christ, because He commanded repentance to us for the sake of that Gift...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Repentance will bring you to God Who will Receive you with the Gift of Salvation here and now...

Hmmm... I'm not so sure of that.

Well, John the Baptist preached it, and when he was beheaded, Christ preached it, And after Christ died and Ascended, Peter preached repentance and Baptism to the Gentiles... Repentance is Book!

Repentance as a command can not also be the commander as like the creation cannot be the creator...

Repentance is God's command for the sake of attaining the Kingdom...

God wants you to repent but it is not what brings you to God, God brings you to God

Of course He does, but not if you are unrepentant...

However a life with Faith without ever repenting isn't faith at all, you are then a thief and a liar trying to force God to sneek you into Heaven by saying "Jesus Jesus!!"
Having Faith means you are faithful and repentance is definitely a call to action but that of course comes with grace since before all things you start of with belief/faith.

Yup...

Salvation is a Covenant of God and man...

You cannot take man out of his side of the Covenant with God...

Man repents...

God Saves...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Nope. I am saying your personal translation is not as legitimate as a translation that has been vetted by peer review. For all I know you could be promoting the Cotton patch Bible. I'm saying that you aren't my gold standard for Bible translation.

The Greek Bible SHOULD be when you make a word claim...

Strong's numbers can help you out...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

The Greek Bible SHOULD be when you make a claim...

Arsenios

Nah. I am not greek and I don't read it. I trust the peer review of the translations I use.
Now...back to justification...

 

[Andrew]

If I may try an experiment.
Participants please;
Copy list and Add your name to the list along with one sentence to explain your stance on Justification

-------------
LIST:
DHoffmann - We are justified by faith through grace and not by righteous deeds alone
-------------

 

[Josiah]

Jesus is the Savior (so we aren't). The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life (no we aren't). Justification is the free gift of God (so we don't give it to ourselves).

 

[Arsenios]

Now...back to justification...

Romans 5:18 KJV
Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men
unto justification of life.

The KJV is a fairly literal translation...

Here is the Greek and my very literal translation (from which the KJV was derived:

ara oun wv di enov paraptwmatov
Wherefore accordingly as through one MIS-DEED

pantav anyrwpouv eiv katakrima
(are) All men unto judgement

outwv kai di enov dikaiwmatov
in this manner also through one RIGHTEOUS DEED

eiv pantav anyrwpouv eiv dikaiwsin zwhv
(are) unto all men unto rectification of Life...

Can you see how the one comes from the other?

And notice the double unto's in the last part...

So the Gift is UNTO... It is NOT that which the unto is itself...

The Gift is UNTO rectification/justification...

Which is itself unto Salvation

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

-------------
LIST:
DHoffmann - We are justified by faith through grace and not by righteous deeds alone
-------------
Arsenios - We are Justified only by God through the Faith of Christ which disciples repentance
-------------