Translations with Arminian Bias?

[etexas]

Hello Margaret,

I don't have a copy of Hills' Space Age Science, his book noted in the link you provided, though there is mention of a sort of geocentrism in The King James Version Defended, page 241, last full paragraph (Cf. also pp. 13 ff.). I'm not sure what to think of it, though it does not seem the naïve view of the ignorant.

Another of the geocentrists mentioned in the critique is one Dr. Bouw, whose work is noted in the two links below:

Geocentricity

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/primer.pdf

I see that Hills was not stupid concerning science, interacted with Einstein's Relativity theory, and was familiar with the advanced physics of his day.

I will have to read a bit and see what this "geocentrism" consists of.

Thanks,

Steve

I would like to see what you come up with Steve, the man was not stupid, look at his education!

 

[MW]

But I'm having difficulty with Gen 4:7 & John 17:12. Could you go into more detail? Or provide some references I could look into?

I will quote John Knox's Treatise on Predestination for Gen. 4:7. The idea of translating the pronoun "it," so as to refer to sin rather than Abel, was furthered by the free-will Anabaptists, and rejected by the Reformed. On John 17:12 I will quote Thomas Manton's and George Hutcheson's comments in loc. to the effect that the Greek "ei me" construction should be adversative, not exceptive; it refers to a different class, not an exception to the previous class.

John Knox:

Moses saith not, that God promised dominion to Cain over his lusts, but saith, “Unto thee shall his appetites or lusts be, and thou shall bear dominion over him;” which is not spoken of sin, but of Abel, who as he was the younger, so was he appointed to be subject to Cain, and to serve him, and therefore most unjustly did he hate him. It is the same phrase that before was spoken of the woman, concerning her subjection to man. Such as have but mean knowledge in the Hebrew text, know well, that both these articles be of the masculine gender, and the substantive, which signifieth sin in that place, is of the feminine gender; and therefore will not the propriety of the tongue suffer that dominion promised be referred to sin. Where blasphemously ye ask, If God gave Cain no power to subdue his lust, who was the author of his sin? I answer, Cain himself: For he was not like to a dead and insensible sword, as ye adduce the similitude, but he was a reasonable instrument infected by the venom of Satan; from the which he not being purged, could do nothing but serve the Devil and his own lusts, against God’s expressed will and commandment. I have before proved, that God is the cause of no man’s damnation, but sin in which they are fallen is the very cause which all reprobates do find in themselves.

Thomas Manton:

The words are not exceptive, but adversative; none of them is lost, but the son of perdition is lost; the words are not rendered “except the son of perdition,” but, “but the son of perdition;” it is not nisi, but sed. There is no exception made of Judas, as if he had been given to Christ, and afterward had fallen away. It is not nemo nisi filius perditionis [no one except the son of perdition], but when he had mentioned their keeping, he would adversatively put the losing of Judas.

George Hutcheson:

for so saith Christ, there is “but the son of perdition,” which cannot come in here by way of exception, as if the meaning were, I have lost none of them whom thou hast given me, except Judas; for it is clear, from John 6:37, 39, 40, that none of all those the Father gave him shall perish; and Judas was never given to Christ to be redeemed, but only to the office of apostleship; but it comes in by way of opposition (as the original particle is frequently used) to this sense, I have lost none of them thou hast given me; but Judas is lost, or, though Judas be lost.