Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,865
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,780
Posts54,875
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,864
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:34 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
The When and How of Justification
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:13 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#18692 Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:56 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
My girlfriend and I started reading Romans this week in our Bible reading time that we do together. Today we read chapter 3. Well, I came across something that seems to be a difference that may effect the interpretation of a verse that is not usually pointed out or seemingly not even considered. It may be nothing, but I figured I'd ask anyway. Here are the verses.

For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Or is God for Jews only? Is He not also for Gentiles? Yes, for Gentiles too, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Romans 3:28-30 (HCSB Emphasis mine)

The words "by" and "through" in Greek are different words. "By" being the Greek word "kai" and "through" being the Greek word "dia". They SEEM to mean different things but I am not skilled much in Greek. Do they mean different things or do they mean the same thing and are just rendered differently for smoothness of reading? And if they do mean different things, how does that effect the interpretation of the passage?

#18693 Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:19 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
The Greek words are actually "ek" and "dia" and yes they mean different things. Though it is true that in verse 30 "ek" indicates source; and "dia" probably intermediate agency, the distinction should be considered a rhetorical device, with no further significance.

I will defer to the BNTC for exposition:

Here, by implication, the two conceivable methods of being saved are set over against each other in a sharp antithesis. According to the first, a person is saved by obeying God’s law (which to the Jew meant: as interpreted and expanded by tradition). According to the second, he is saved by faith.

All “glorying” is excluded. It is by faith that it has been excluded. According to the first, justification, therefore also salvation, is the product of human merit; according to the second, of divine grace.

Paul here, as well as everywhere else, definitely endorses the second proposition. He rejects the first. No wonder, for he who stresses works expects salvation to come from within; that is, from below. He who emphasizes faith looks away from himself to God, and expects salvation to come from him; that is, from above.

When, in his translation of the New Testament Luther reached this passage he rendered it as follows, “So halten wir nun dafür, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben,” that is, “So we hold that a person is justified without works of the law, through faith alone.” For this addition of the word alone he was severely criticized. His answer was:

“If your papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, alone, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so … Are they [the Papists] doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I … Therefore the word alone shall remain in my New Testament, and though all papal donkeys get furious, they shall not take it out."

Luther should not have inserted this word. And the critics should not have raised such a storm of protest about it, for, after all, when Paul states that it is by faith that a person is justified, apart from law works, does he not actually mean “by faith alone”?

This position, of course, does not exclude works of gratitude, the fruit of faith, as the apostle makes very clear, both in Romans (6:1–14; 7:4–6; 8:12–14; ch. 12, etc.), and in other epistles (Gal. 5:22–26; Eph. 2:8–10; I Tim. 2:1–6; Titus 2:11–14).

In close connection with the thought of verse 28 Paul continues:

29, 30. Or is God (the God) of Jews only? Is he not (the God) of Gentiles also? Certainly, of Gentiles also; seeing that there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

If it were true that works in conformity with the law were required as a condition upon the fulfilment of which salvation was based, then Gentiles, living apart from the law, would have no chance to be saved. God would be the God of the Jews only. The Gentiles would have to look elsewhere for salvation; perhaps to some other God? The apostle definitely rejects this suggestion. He affirms that there are not two Gods, one for the Jews, and one for the Gentiles. In harmony with what he has said previously (see especially such passages as 2:25f.; 3:22) and is going to say a little later (10:12, 13), and in thorough agreement also with the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 8:10–12; John 3:16; 10:14–16; 17:20, 21), the apostle here strongly affirms that there is only one God (cf. Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5) and only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, for circumcised and uncircumcised (Gen. 22:18; Isa. 45:22; Rom. 4:9–12).

It is hard to see how, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul could have expressed the “no distinction” truth in clearer language. It takes but little imagination to sense how the entire Roman congregation, gathered for worship, whether in one meeting place or in several, must have rejoiced when this epistle, with its emphasis on unity (cf. Eph. 2:11–17) was read. The notion according to which even today God recognizes two groups in which he takes special delight—the Jews and the church—finds no support either here or anywhere else in Scripture. What does find support is Paul’s passage found in Eph. 4:4–6.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
"ek" is deffinitely what I was thinking. I am not sure why I typed "kai".

So from that, and I am just making sure I understood properly, the words are used to mean kinda the same thing and and to more or less emphasise that both Jews and Gentiles are justified in like manner, that being, by means of faith and not by works of the law?

#18695 Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:53 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
So from that, and I am just making sure I understood properly, the words are used to mean kinda the same thing and and to more or less emphasise that both Jews and Gentiles are justified in like manner, that being, by means of faith and not by works of the law?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> What Paul is doing is showing that God is the God of all nations, not just exclusively to the Jews. And for one to be reconciled to this God, due to the fact that all men have sinned and are now under God's judgment, he/she must come to Him through faith in Christ Jesus. Thus, the Jews are justified by faith (apart from the law) in the same way that Gentiles are saved through this same means, i.e., faith (apart from the law). It is only by, through the means of faith, apart from any contribution by man (law works) that sinners are saved; aka: by faith alone. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend that you read Dr. Joel Beeke's article, Justification by Faith Alone. Beeke spends a good deal of time explaining how the prepositions, by and through are used in the various passages of Scripture.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I am printing the article and am going to read it as I eat dinner [Linked Image]before I go to church for revival services tonight.[Linked Image]

Thanks!

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
J_Edwards said:
When, in his translation of the New Testament Luther reached this passage he rendered it as follows, “So halten wir nun dafür, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben,” that is, “So we hold that a person is justified without works of the law, through faith alone.” For this addition of the word alone he was severely criticized. His answer was:

“If your papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, alone, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so … Are they [the Papists] doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I … Therefore the word alone shall remain in my New Testament, and though all papal donkeys get furious, they shall not take it out."

Luther should not have inserted this word. And the critics should not have raised such a storm of protest about it, for, after all, when Paul states that it is by faith that a person is justified, apart from law works, does he not actually mean “by faith alone”?

Luther had good reason to use "alone" according the usages of the German tongue. He elaborates in his "Open Letter on Translating", tr. by Dr. Gary Mann, Pennsylanvia State University.

Quote
I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text-if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

Of course, he adds that he would have inserted "alone" even if German usage did not require it.

Quote
So much for translating and the nature of language.However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word “solum”(alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul’s mean-ing, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He is deal-ing with the main point of Christian doctrine in thispassage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christwithout any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects allworks so completely as to say that the works of theLaw, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us injustification. Using Abraham as an example, he arguesthat Abraham was so justified without works that eventhe highest work, which had been commanded by God,over and above all others, namely circumcision, didnot aid him in justification. Instead, Abraham was jus-tified without circumcision and without any works, butby faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham is justi-fied by works, he may boast, but not before God.”However, when all works are so completely rejected -which must mean faith alone justifies - whoever wouldspeak plainly and clearly about this rejection of workswould have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.”The matter itself and the nature of language necessi-tates it.

Perhaps our English bibles are the ones in error.

Last edited by speratus; Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:13 PM.
#18698 Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Luther had good reason to use "alone" according the usages of the German tongue. He elaborates in his "Open Letter on Translating", tr. by Dr. Gary Mann, Pennsylanvia State University.
First, J_Edwards did not say...."the quote"... As I stated, "I will defer to the BNTC for exposition." Second, Luther ADDED to the text. Commentary is different then translation--a rule Luther should have used! IMHO a "literal" word-for-word translation is better than a "Dynamic Equivalence." Here is a series of posts on it. Enjoy. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

As far as Luther, he wrote a "meaning-oriented Bible translation" and not a "literal word-for-word" translation. (Ernst R. Wendland, “Martin Luther, the Father of Confessional, Functional-Equivalence Bible Translation: Parts 1 and 2” in Notes on Translation 9:1 and 9:2 (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995) pp. 20-21.).


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
J Edwards,

Thanks for the references. One, in particular, makes it clear that Luther is not inserting anything into the text.

Quote
Luther's concern to be faithful to the inspired Word in translating comes out in his defense of that particular translation which was most vehemently attacked: Romans 3:28. As is well known, Luther's translation "inserted" the word, "only" (German: allein). Admittedly, this word does not appear in the original Greek. The Roman Catholics professed outrage and accused Luther of deliberately tampering with the text, in order to buttress his beloved doctrine of justification by faith only. Luther does not admit to any "insertion" of a word into the Bible, without any warrant in the text itself. On the contrary, the word, "only," is called for by the meaning of the text itself and by good German usage. The thought of the apostle Paul in Romans 3:28, justification by faith without the deeds of the law, is that expressed by the word, "only." In addition, good German often uses "only," when an affirmative and a negative statement are contrasted. The word, "only," is not necessary in a German translation of Romans 3:28; but it does make Paul's statement "more complete and more intelligible" than would be the case if it were omitted.6

In contrast to Luther's faithfulness to the inspired Word, "dynamic equivalence" produces versions which change the Word of God, not only as regards words, but also as regards sense, thought, and doctrine. But a Bible is worthless, if it cannot be trusted to give faithfully and reliably the Word inspired by God.

Rev. David Engelsma

#18700 Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:19 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
While I respect the writings of Engelsma he is incorrect. While I agree with him that inserting the word "alone" did not change the meaning of the verse for Germans then, that is not the only parameter for saying something is literal or dynamic. Even Engelsma in his quote states, "Admittedly, this word does not appear in the original Greek." Luther could write in his "commentary" all day long about the term "alone" (and his commentary use of the term would be correct) but the text of Scripture is written a specific way and should not be tampered with. Luther is not God! In addition, there are different types of German (The main phases are called Old High German (Althochdeutsch, AHD), Middle High German (Mittelhochdeutsch, MHD), and New High German (Neuhochdeutsch, NHD, etc.) and words and phrase develop and change meanings with time. Literal translation is more exact and easier to "understand" later.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#18701 Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:26 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Quote
speratus said:
J Edwards,

Thanks for the references. One, in particular, makes it clear that Luther is not inserting anything into the text.
speratus,

I am going to agree with J_Edwards on this particular issue; that Luther did indeed err in inserting "alone" into his translation. Since the word does not appear in the inspired text, then he had no warrant to add it. We must be firm in our understanding the differences between translation and interpretation. Luther's understanding (interpretation) of the text is 100% correct; i.e., Paul was saying that it is by faith (alone) and not by works of the law that a man is justified. There is certainly no disagreement about that. The text/context demands that understanding. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> However, we must NEVER, EVER impose our interpretation, as correct as it may be on the sacred text itself and change it according to that interpretation. The meaning of the inspired text comes from exegesis not by manipulation of the text itself. Luther also erred, IMHO, in inserting 1John 5:7 in his translation as well; and clearly for less than virtuous reasons. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Remember, although Luther was a chosen vessel of God to lead His people out of the bondage of Rome, was simultaneously a sinner, a fallible one to be sure. Even he realized this when he coined that marvelous phrase, simul iustus et peccator. I would counsel you not to make of Martin Luther what Rome has done to its Pope. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Luther, unlike the Pope, invites his hearers to judge everything he has written. I have judged his writings and I have consigned many of them to the trash bin. But Luther had good reason to include "alone" in his translation according the usages of German language. To do otherwise would have created a stilted, literal, translation.

Has the Roman church or any other sect proposed that man is justified by something other than the works of the law? If it were possible to invent a doctrine whereby men could be justified by something other than faith that was not a deed of the law, someone would have already done it.

#18703 Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:47 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
But Luther had good reason to include "alone" in his translation according the usages of German language. To do otherwise would have created a stilted, literal, translation.
Uhmm, I guess we will need to talk to God when we get to heaven and ask Him why His literal inspired inerrant Word was so imperfect that He needed Luther so it would no longer be a stilted, literal, translation? God does not make mistakes! But, Luther would state that the Book of James is an epistle of straw? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

As far as Luther's Bible it is full of more than just one error! He adapted the words to the capacity of the Germans (High German), often at the expense of accuracy. He cared more for the substance than the form. He turned the Hebrew shekel into a Silberling,the Greek drachma and Roman denarius into a German Groschen, the quadrans into a Heller, the Hebrew measures into Scheffel, Malter, Tonne, Centner, and the Roman centurion into a Hauptmann. He substituted even undeutsch (!) for barbarian in 1 Cor. 14:11. Still greater liberties he allowed himself in the Apocrypha, to make them more easy and pleasant reading. He used popular alliterative phrases as Geld und Gut, Land und Leute, Rath und That, Stecken und Stab, Dornen und Disteln, matt und müde, gäng und gäbe. He avoided foreign terms which rushed in like a flood with the revival of learning, especially in proper names (as Melanchthon for Schwarzerd, Aurifaber for Goldschmid, Oecolampadius for Hausschein, Camerarius for Kammermeister). Luther brought harmony out of this confusion, and made the modern High German the common book language. He chose as the basis the Saxon dialect, which was used at the Saxon court and in diplomatic intercourse between the emperor and the estates, but was bureaucratic, stiff, heavy, involved, dragging, and unwieldy. He popularized and adapted it to theology and religion. He enriched it with the vocabulary of the German mystics, chroniclers, and poets...read Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910, for complete article.

Dr. Emser, one of the most learned opponents of the Reformation, singled out in Luther's New Testament several hundred linguistic blunders and heretical falsifications.

Quote
Annotationes des hochgel. und christl. doctors Hieronymi Emsers über Luthers neuw Testament, 1523. I have before me an edition of Freiburg-i.-B., 1535 (140 pages). Emser charges Luther with a thousand grammatical and fourteen hundred heretical errors. He suspects (p. 14) that he had before him "ein sonderlich Wickleffisch oder Hussisch Exemplar." He does not say whether he means a copy of the Latin Vulgate or the older German version. He finds (p. 17) four errors in Luther's version of the Lord's Prayer: 1, that he turned Vater unser into Unser Vater, against the German custom for a thousand years (but in his Shorter Catechism he retained the old form, and the Lutherans adhere to it to this day); 2, that he omitted der du bist; 3, that he changed the panis supersubstantialis (überselbständig Brot!) into panis quotidianus (täglich Brot); 4, that he added the doxology, which is not in the Vulgate. In our days, one of the chief objections against the English Revision is the omission of the doxology.
While of course we would not agree with Emser’s “complete” conclusion of every error, if even 1% of what he found is true, Luther’s scholarship in “translation” may and actually is to this day questioned. Perfect Bible translations need no revisions, but...

Quote
The printed Bible text of Luther had the same fate as the written text of the old Itala and Jerome's Vulgate. It passed through innumerable improvements and mis-improvements. The orthography and inflections were modernized, obsolete words removed, the versicular division introduced (first in a Heidelberg reprint, 1568), the spurious clause of the three witnesses inserted in 1 John 5:7 (first by a Frankfurt publisher, 1574), the third and fourth books of Ezra and the third book of the Maccabees added to the Apocrypha, and various other changes effected, necessary and unnecessary, good and bad. Elector August of Saxony tried to control the text in the interest of strict Lutheran orthodoxy, and ordered the preparation of a standard edition (1581). But it was disregarded outside of Saxony.

Gradually no less than eleven or twelve recensions came into use, some based on the edition of 1545, others on that of 1546. The most careful recension was that of the Canstein Bible Institute, founded by a pious nobleman, Carl Hildebrand von Canstein (1667-1719) in connection with Francke's Orphan House at Halle. It acquired the largest circulation and became the textus receptus of the German Bible.
With the immense progress of biblical learning in the present century, the desire for a timely revision of Luther's version was more and more felt. Revised versions with many improvements were prepared by Joh.- Friedrich von Meyer, a Frankfurt patrician (1772-1849), and Dr. Rudolf Stier (18001862), but did not obtain public authority. At last a conservative official revision of the Luther Bible was inaugurated by the combined German church governments in 1863, with a view and fair prospect of superseding all former editions in public use.
While I concur that Luther’s edition of the Bible accomplished much for the Kingdom of God it does not reveal what God does with our perfection(s) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />, but what God can yet do with our frail imperfections. God alone has no imperfection, but Luther and others are not alone in theirs.

Quote
Has the Roman church or any other sect proposed that man is justified by something other than the works of the law?
Yes, plenty of the cults have. ... don't drink caffeine is not against O.T. law, in actuality some believe you need no justification at all, others believe in a world soul, etc.

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
J Edwards,

Quote
Perfect Bible translations need no revisions


If everyone was fluent in ancient greek and hebrew, we wouldn't need any translations. Our only task would be to decide which manuscripts to use. But we are not all fluent in ancient languages. We rely on translators who are supposed to take all the nuances of meaning from the selected texts gleaned from years of study and convert it into comprehensible modern language without changing the meaning in the least.

Are there any translations that succeed perfectly? I don't think so. Let's not judge Luther's translation against an unattainable standard of perfection.

Quote
Quote
Has the Roman church or any other sect proposed that man is justified by something other than the works of the law?
Yes, plenty of the cults have. Don't drink caffeine, etc.

"Don't drink caffeine" is a work of the law because the cult members wish to justified by works. My challenge remains. Name a single cult that teaches man is justified by something other than a work of the law. When Luther includes "alone" in German, he is merely saying "faith not works". The one thing is affirmed and the other denied. Which is exactly what our English versions say without using the word "alone".

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
Our only task would be to decide which manuscripts to use. But we are not all fluent in ancient languages. We rely on translators who are supposed to take all the nuances of meaning from the selected texts gleaned from years of study and convert it into comprehensible modern language without changing the meaning in the least.

Are there any translations that succeed perfectly? I don't think so. Let's not judge Luther's translation against an unattainable standard of perfection.
You need to do more than ask which manuscripts to use? Even if we had the original autographs (and we don’t to our knowledge, all we have are the apographs) our understanding, commentaries, etc would still be imperfect, for we do not have an exhaustive understanding of "all" Scripture (but, there is necessary understanding for salvation, etc.). But, to add our imperfections to the translation of the written Word of God and call it "the Word of God" is sin! It says (1) that we know better than God what His word should say, and (2) that God is ignorant in His communication with man, etc. The only standard of perfection we have are the present apographs of the Greek and Hebrew, let us not add to them in hopes of attaining your, Luther's, or anyone else's standard of acceptability!

Quote
Name a single cult that teaches man is justified by something other than a work of the law.
In actuality, some believe you need no justification at all, for there is no need of a salvation for none are loss... One branch of the Unitarian Universalist cult states, "Salvation to the UU is a guarantee. We do not believe in Hell. There is no sin, there is no penalty for sin, there is no Hell, therefore, there is nothing to be saved from." ([Linked Image]what I do find hilarious here though is they capitalize Hell as a real place, thus affirming that it does exist).

Others see all creation--including god--in the "process of becoming" (part of a universal soul, part and parcel of Plotinus ancient teaching) and thus there is no sin, no hell, there is no "complete" god yet (for he is still becoming who he will "be") and thus there is no need of justification, for there is no judge who "is"..., but when he finally "is" everyone else will finally "be" (part of the universal soul which is actually god when complete) and thus no judgment will ever be necessary for all will be perfect and thus there are no works that save (for none are loss, for everyone is part of the whole, which is god, who need not judge himself), for all is just "becoming" or maturing to what it shall "be" (understand <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />).

Quote
When Luther includes "alone" in German, he is merely saying "faith not works".
While I agree with you on his intent that is not what is at stake. Some may rightfully contend he meant faith alone as opposed to the theology of the epistle of straw (the book of James). Thus, by adding the term "alone" to Romans 3 one is justified to say he was introducing error into holy text if someone walked away with the notion that James did not agree with Paul on justification. You have not yet understood the difference between commentary and translation!

YOUR view is much like the Catholic view. One day the Pope may state something Ex cathedra that may not be "all wrong" (it may actually agree with proper Scripture interpretation) and thus you would have to allow the RCC to add to the Word of God--as well as any other cult that met the same stipulations. This leads to God's Word plus the Pope's, plus Luther's, plus Speratus, plus all other charismatic chaos. You no longer have the message, but a mess. The end result would be a nearly inspired version... [Linked Image]


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
speratus

As I follow this thread I am reminded of a few discussions (on this board and others) I have seen on the subject of dynamic equivalent vs. literal translation.
It would appear that you have no problem with a dynamic equivalent.
In other words, you have no problem adding words that are not there (i.e. "alone") in the original as long as they don't contradict the gist of what the original languages were saying.
I have a problem with a dynamic equivalent, for the simple reason that if I wanted to read a commentary, I would read a commentary.

Tom

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 77 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,390 Gospel truth