Quote:
Originally Posted by prespastor  Having said that, I'd like to ask Armourbearer, just to find out where you are in the spectrum...could you point out 1 example in the KJV where the translation is wrong? | Why not ask a question which requires me to state where I am in the spectrum rather than create this meaningless test? If you are testing me to see if I am cynical as to the results of all human endeavour because of human fallibility, No, I am not. I have not seen any errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith and I cannot see any errors in the Authorised Version of the Bible. There may be places where the wording of both human productions might be more precisely constructed, but the sense conveys the truth, in my humble opinion. Quote:
Originally Posted by prespastor In Ephesians 1:5, the ESV's rendering "according to the purpose of his will", is much stronger wording for the doctrine of election (which is the context) then the KJV's "according to the good pleasure of his will". Either translation is arguably correct in this context (eudokia). | Eudokia and prothesis are two different words conveying distinct ideas, as will be seen by comparing ver. 5 with ver. 11. "Good pleasure" shows that the spring of God's purpose is in God Himself. Matthew Henry: “Here is also the rule and fontal cause of God’s election: it is according to the good pleasure of His will (v. 5), not for the sake of anything in them foreseen, but because it was his sovereign will, and a thing highly pleasing to him." When reformed writers come to prove the unconditionality of God's purpose they generally do so by an appeal to the fact that God predestinates according to His good pleasure. The word "purpose" or "intention" falls short of conveying this idea satisfactorily.
The ESV translates prothesis in ver. 11 with the same word, "purpose," thereby obscuring the fact that two different ideas are conveyed in vv. 5, 11. Moreover, in Phil 2:13, it inconsistently retains "good pleasure." Quote:
Originally Posted by prespastor The Greek word in question here is "epilambanomai". This word literally means to 'lay hold of with vigor' for a specific purpose (to help, to injure, to attain, etc.). The Youngs Literal Translation renders this verse, "or, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold".
What we see here is that both the ESV and the KJV are interpreting the text (a dynamic equivalent in this case) for the reader. Personally, I would rather see both translations render this text more literally as the interpretation could arguably go in either direction. While both interpretations fit the context, I favor the interpretation as presented in the ESV, that here Christ is taking hold of the seed of Abraham in the 'help' sense. However, if it were up to me (thankfully it isn’t), I would rather see passages like this more literally translated. In either of the translations (KJV & ESV--along with just about all others), the reader has no idea that there is a difficulty in this verse that needs some thinking. | See John Owen in loc. Quote:
Some, then, take the meaning of this expression to be, that the Lord Christ,
by his participation of flesh and blood, brought help and relief, not unto
angels, but unto men, the seed of Abraham. And they suppose to this
purpose, that ejpilamza>netai is put for jnalamza>netai, — “to help, to
succour, to relieve, to vindicate into liberty.” Of this mind are Castalio and
all the Socinians: among those of the Roman church, Ribera; Estius also
and a Lapide speak doubtfully in the case: of Protestants, Cameron and
Grotius, who affirms, moreover, that Chrysostom and the Greek
scholiasts so interpret the place and words; which I should have marvelled
at, had I not long before observed him greatly to fail or mistake in many of
his quotations. Chrysostom, whom he names in particular, expressly
referreth this whole verse unto the Lord Christ’s assumption of the nature
of man, and not of the nature of angels. The same also is insisted on by
Theophylact and OEcumenius, without any intimation of the sense that
Grotius would impose upon them.
The Socinians embrace and endeavour to confirm this second exposition of
the words: and it is their concernment so to do; for if the words express
that the Lord Christ assumed human nature, which necessarily infers his
pre-existence in another nature, their persuasion about the person of
Christ is utterly overthrown. Their exceptions in their controversial
writings unto this place have been elsewhere considered. Those of
Enjedinus on this text are answered by Paraeus, those of Castalio by Beza,
and the objections of some others by Gomarus.
| The AV rendering represents the reformed understanding of the Greek of Heb. 2:16. All modern versions follow the Anabaptist and Socinian interpretation. It is not a matter of what the Greek word ordinarily means in and of itself, but what it signifies in the context of the passage, which clearly teaches what Christ has done for His brethren in assuming their nature. Quote:
Originally Posted by prespastor Moving on to Acts 13:48…a quibble was presented with the translation of 'tasso' as 'appointed' instead of 'ordained'. I would argue that 'appointed' is the superior translation in this place. While the word 'appoint' conveys the simpler meaning of being chosen or selected for something, the word 'ordain' can convey additional meaning (ordination to the specific office of elder for instance). I understand that either word can be used either way, but as Armourbearer previously stated, the English word 'ordain' typically conveys something more. For this reason, 'appointed' is, in my opinion, a better word choice for Acts 13:48. Conversely, in Titus 1:5, I think the KJV is better in this instance to use the word 'ordain' over the ESV's 'appoint' because here we are dealing with the ordination of elders. | See my previous comments about semantic domains. Acts 15:2 provides a similar use of the word with a decretive connotation. We cannot allow the use of "ordain" with reference to office to dominate the meaning of the word when it is used with reference to destiny.
__________________
Yours sincerely, 
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
Last edited by armourbearer; 02-25-2007 at 06:16 PM.
|