A Serious Mistranslation

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

I think that’s enough to get my point across. And that’s only in Romans. So much for KJV onlyism. And unfortunately, the “clearer†modern translations are little improvement, if any.

FC

I don't quite understand why Greek prepositions should be such a source of confusion.

Bearing in mind that the NT was written for the common guy (hence the name koine -meaning 'common' - Greek) there's no real reason to suppose that the meanings of given passages in the NT were in any way obscure when the documents were first received.

In English, we don't need to read great grammatical tomes to figure out the meaning of the prepositions. Otherwise, we'd all be going round with our mouths tightly shut.

But as you rightly point out, there are translators and translators, and some of them (like the Living Bible) are quite hair-raising!

I do think, however, that when a whole phrase is involved, the probabilityof getting it wrong about 6 or 7 times in the whole book is greatly reduced.

The error probability is reduced by the number of occasions where the phrase occurs - because you'd have to be a seriously duff translator or committee to err 6 or 7 times on the trot.

Which is why I cited the 6 or so places where en tw onomati Iesou is used as a phrase.

They got it right the majority of those times, but in Php 2 they let their trinitarian optimism run away with them, and substituted 'at the name' for the very same words which they themselves knew they had translated 'in the name' several times before.

Is that intellectual dishonesty?

It's like your point that Jn 3.16 (which really did surprise me) save that 'whosoever believeth into Him should not perish'. I checked to see if that was really the case, and it is.

Of course, the translators couldn't make head nor tail of the fact, and used 'in' instead of 'into'. But as you again pointed out, 'eis' really does mean 'into' and not 'in'.

And in Php 2, 'en' really does mean 'in', and definitely not 'at'.

Of course, our theologically inclined writers will be able to dig up some fragment of papyrus where some illiterate moron used 'en' to mean 'by', and come forth triumphantly brandishing that example as proof that 'en' really means 'at'.

Let them alone.

It's a pity that we have to be so bound to theologians and translators: and you have chosen the very wise course of learning Greek yourself. It isn't too difficult a language (not like Xhosa!).

I have personally opted for the easier route of using the 10 or so translations in the Online Bible, where there's some safety in numbers.

 

[Asyncritus]

All the dead will be raised...no doubt about it.
The goats and the sheep stand before the throne of God.

Quite true GD.

But that doesn't include EVERYBODY.

Didn't Daniel 12 say MANY that sleep in the dust of the earth? Didn't Jeremiah 51 say the those people shall sleep a perpetual sleep and NOT AWAKE?

So how do you square that with EVERYBODY being raised?

 

[2bfoundinhim]

Hi everyone,

It seems to me that if we understand that there has ever only been two natures, The first Adam and The last Adam, then "in" would be more reasonable, I think.

Take the word Name, we all understand that it means, Authority, Character,
Nature, right? To truly take that name is to put on that nature.

Most I think don't really understand that it's so much more than just tacking it on at the end of every prayer.

I'm a simple person, so I tend to see things simply, to me those that are spoken of, of not rising in the old testament, is not "People" but the "nature" of those People.

I think this can be seen in many places, but mostly on the Cross itself.
with the two thiefs.
The one repented, the other did'nt, but I don't believe that he won't be saved, but I do believe it is there to show us, how Christ put to death on His Cross, the emity, or enemy, that kept us from our Father. The one rises and the other does'nt.

Just my thoughts
Blessings

 

[Free]

You haven't said anything about those passages I quoted from the OT, Free.

Give it your best shot.

They say that not every one gets raised. You need to do some reconciling of the two passages here.

I will get to it but the onus is just as much on you to reconcile the passages, since the NT clearly shows that everyone will be raised.

 

[Asyncritus]

I will get to it but the onus is just as much on you to reconcile the passages, since the NT clearly shows that everyone will be raised.

Oh, I can reconcile them very simply - just as you could if you put your mind to it.

So give it your best shot, and I'll give you mine.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“I have personally opted for the easier route of using the 10 or so translations in the Online Bible, where there's some safety in numbers.”


Safety in numbers?

The numbers not only favor AT in Phil 2:10, but favor the idea that the Greek word en has a rather large variety of meanings, depending on how the context is interpretatively understood.

The majority of Christians are Catholic. So the numbers favor Catholicism. Their two modern translations favor AT.

The majority of Christians and Bible translators believe that the practice of Biblical interpretation is necessary to understand the Bible properly. Which idea of necessity requires an educated class. So the numbers are against what I believe in opposition to the practice of Biblical interpretation and what we’ve both stated about the educated class in Christianity.

The numbers favor Trinitarianism.

The majority believe that we’re saved by our personal faith in Christ, not that we are saved by the faith of Christ. In fact, since the majority of Christians are Catholic, the numbers believe we’re saved by our faith AND the works that express that faith, not that we’re saved by the faith of Christ. And the numbers agree that the Genitive phrase found in such verses as Rom 3:28 and Gal 2:16 should be translated as an Objective Genitive (in) rather than a subjective Genitive (of).

Regarding verses such as John 3:16, the numbers almost unanimously favor the idea that the Greek word eis means in.

The numbers in the world favor the idea that the Bible is a book filled with myths and that their own myths are objectively true.

While the number of people in the world don’t acknowledge they are Atheists, the number of people who live as if they are Atheists are the numbers.

The numbers favor the idea that what I believe I have received by listening to the teaching of Jesus Christ through the Spirit is just personal opinion or worse.

I personally find no comfort, let alone safety, in numbers.

FC

 

[Lehigh3]

So what is the difference if we all must appear at (or before) the judgment seat of Christ? (2Cor.5:10)

"In" or "at" - it seems we "all" will bow someday. :fight

 

[glorydaz]

Quite true GD.

But that doesn't include EVERYBODY.

Didn't Daniel 12 say MANY that sleep in the dust of the earth? Didn't Jeremiah 51 say the those people shall sleep a perpetual sleep and NOT AWAKE?

So how do you square that with EVERYBODY being raised?

Gosh, even when I see it in Young's, I can't explain it. Perpetual sleep, huh?

57And I have caused its princes to drink, And its wise men, its governors, And its prefects, and its mighty ones, And they have slept a sleep age-during, And they awake not -- an affirmation of the king, Jehovah of Hosts [is] His name.

I'll admit, I don't know. I'm going to compare the other verses. I think the majority will rule for me unless I hear something that agrees with the rest of the Word.

I sure did enjoy reading out of Jeremiah, though. Thanks.

I'm going to study on this. How do you explain it?

 

[glorydaz]

I don't quite understand why Greek prepositions should be such a source of confusion.

Bearing in mind that the NT was written for the common guy (hence the name koine -meaning 'common' - Greek) there's no real reason to suppose that the meanings of given passages in the NT were in any way obscure when the documents were first received.

In English, we don't need to read great grammatical tomes to figure out the meaning of the prepositions. Otherwise, we'd all be going round with our mouths tightly shut.

But as you rightly point out, there are translators and translators, and some of them (like the Living Bible) are quite hair-raising!

I do think, however, that when a whole phrase is involved, the probabilityof getting it wrong about 6 or 7 times in the whole book is greatly reduced.

The error probability is reduced by the number of occasions where the phrase occurs - because you'd have to be a seriously duff translator or committee to err 6 or 7 times on the trot.

Which is why I cited the 6 or so places where en tw onomati Iesou is used as a phrase.

They got it right the majority of those times, but in Php 2 they let their trinitarian optimism run away with them, and substituted 'at the name' for the very same words which they themselves knew they had translated 'in the name' several times before.

Is that intellectual dishonesty?

It's like your point that Jn 3.16 (which really did surprise me) save that 'whosoever believeth into Him should not perish'. I checked to see if that was really the case, and it is.

Of course, the translators couldn't make head nor tail of the fact, and used 'in' instead of 'into'. But as you again pointed out, 'eis' really does mean 'into' and not 'in'.

And in Php 2, 'en' really does mean 'in', and definitely not 'at'.

Of course, our theologically inclined writers will be able to dig up some fragment of papyrus where some illiterate moron used 'en' to mean 'by', and come forth triumphantly brandishing that example as proof that 'en' really means 'at'.

Let them alone.

It's a pity that we have to be so bound to theologians and translators: and you have chosen the very wise course of learning Greek yourself. It isn't too difficult a language (not like Xhosa!).

I have personally opted for the easier route of using the 10 or so translations in the Online Bible, where there's some safety in numbers.

I go by what makes sense. I figure the Holy Spirit will help me out.

 

[Asyncritus]

Something can make sense and still be completely wrong GD. You need to check.

If you won't help yourself, then why should the Holy Spirit bother? After all, God gave you a brain for some reason or other. What do you think that reason was?

Huh?

 

[glorydaz]

Something can make sense and still be completely wrong GD. You need to check.

If you won't help yourself, then why should the Holy Spirit bother? After all, God gave you a brain for some reason or other. What do you think that reason was?

Huh?

If I attempt to come up with an answer according to my own wisdom, I can become wise in my own eyes and then I may settle on something that isn't true. As it happens, as I was reading another portion of scripture from the OT in regards to a different subject, I ran across another instance of someone not waking from sleep. In that instance, it was clearly talking about someone who died in their sleep. I remembered what we had been discussing about perpetual sleep, and I'm more than inclined to believe it is the same. Whenever a portion of the Word seems to contradict, we can rest assured it's our own understanding at fault.

So, I'm concluding, that a sleep from which a person doesn't awake means exactly that. They die before they have a chance to wake up in the morning. They can't wake up because they were killed in the night. Nothing to do with being raised at the Judgment.

 

[Asyncritus]

If I attempt to come up with an answer according to my own wisdom, I can become wise in my own eyes and then I may settle on something that isn't true. As it happens, as I was reading another portion of scripture from the OT in regards to a different subject, I ran across another instance of someone not waking from sleep. In that instance, it was clearly talking about someone who died in their sleep. I remembered what we had been discussing about perpetual sleep, and I'm more than inclined to believe it is the same. Whenever a portion of the Word seems to contradict, we can rest assured it's our own understanding at fault.

So, I'm concluding, that a sleep from which a person doesn't awake means exactly that. They die before they have a chance to wake up in the morning. They can't wake up because they were killed in the night. Nothing to do with being raised at the Judgment.

Interesting point. Which passage was that in the OT?

Just looked up th meaning of 'perpetual' (Jer 51.57). It means just that - never waking up.

 

[glorydaz]

Interesting point. Which passage was that in the OT?

Just looked up th meaning of 'perpetual' (Jer 51.57). It means just that - never waking up.

I just spent over an hour trying to remember where I've been reading over the last few days, and I can't find the verse I was thinking might speak to this issue. As used in Jer., though, my concordance says the word is OLAM which means "an age, or indefinate time". Isaiah 26 has some interesting words, as well. Jesus says, in John 5:28-29, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Of Course, some think there are two judgments, some not.

To be honest, I think there is plenty sealed up we aren't going to know until the end. I just think it means they won't be raised to life. Even those dead that are brought forward for destruction aren't raised to LIFE. While it's an interesting study, I have so many other things to occupy my mind having to do with sharing the Gospel of salvation, I can't be too distracted about whether those who sleep actually awake or not. ;)

PS But, I will keep looking for that verse.