Quote:
Originally Posted by prespastor  This is what I meant by many KJV defenders who argue 'a priori'. Since, in your view the KJV has no errors, it is futile to discuss textual and translational issues because there will always be some dogmatic reason the KJV is right and everything else is wrong...and ultimately, the reason is not truely the arguements given, but because the reading is in the KJV (the presupposition). |
Either way you see it, comparing the AV and modern English translations in regard to their affects on theology is a massive help and a very enlightening endeavor.
Your
post #45 was the first in this thread that actually engaged the topic that Rev. Winzer has so brilliantly been hitting on.
I hope you continue.
Maybe another modern translation proponent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer 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." |
