Galatians 2:20

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Nov 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Since this matter was brought up in another topic, let's give it its own topic. The issue before us is another member asked why the NIV changed this verse from how it was written in the KJV.

    Here's Gal. 2:20 from the KJV: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

    And from the NIV: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

    The main difference is between OF & IN. I would say that the KJV followed the Bishop's Bible in writing "of". However, the older Geneva Bible says "in".

    I shall paste an earlier message from another topic explaining my view of this matter:

    Now, I'm NOT saying the KJV is wrong here. Its translators were most likely using of as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents, I. E. cup of water, bar of gold, etc. But by that same token, in is certainly not incorrect, either. We certainly see this usage in the KJV's Gal. 2:16. I have seen this usage quite often in my reading of older English literature, I. E. "My love is OF my lady", "The king's power is OF his loyal knights".

    And the GREEK reads 'pistis'(faith) Christos(Christ) with no article or any other word between those two words.

    In other words, the NIV(and other modern versions) simply updated the language here. That's the answer to the gentleman's question in the other thread.
     
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    "of" is not a very precise word since it can have any of the following senses:

    1. Derived or coming from; originating at or from: customs of the South.
    2. Caused by; resulting from: a death of tuberculosis.
    3. Away from; at a distance from: a mile east of here.
    4. So as to be separated or relieved from: robbed of one's dignity; cured of distemper.
    5. From the total or group comprising: give of one's time; two of my friends; most of the cases.
    6. Composed or made from: a dress of silk.
    7. Associated with or adhering to: people of your religion.
    8. Belonging or connected to: the rungs of a ladder.
    9a. Possessing; having: a person of honor.
    9b. On one's part: very nice of you.
    10. Containing or carrying: a basket of groceries.
    11. Specified as; named or called: a depth of ten feet; the Garden of Eden.
    12. Centering on; directed toward: a love of horses.
    13. Produced by; issuing from: products of the vine.
    14. Characterized or identified by: a year of famine.
    15a.With reference to; about: think highly of her proposals; will speak of it later.
    15b. In respect to: slow of speech.
    16. Set aside for; taken up by: a day of rest.
    17. Before; until: five minutes of two.
    18. During or on a specified time: of recent years.
    19. By: beloved of the family.
    20. Used to indicate an appositive: that idiot of a driver.
    21. Archaic. On: “A plague of all cowards, I say” (Shakespeare).

    The context can narrow down the possible meanings. I would hesitate to base a strong belief upon the necessity of this word.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe the translators of the Bishop's Bible and of the AV used "of" several times, including Galatians 2:20, in the sense of your Definition # 21.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Some research:
    Lachmann (1842) and Tregelles (1857) note a variant in Gal 2:20.
    They read "faith of God and Christ" instead of "faith of the Son of God".
    Thi varant is also observed in the earliest textual witness of this verse, P46.

    Images of Papyrus 46 - Gal 2:20
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/links19.html
    (Note the abbreviations for both God and Christ four lines from the bottom of the page)

    20ζω δε ουκετι εγω
    ζη] δ̣ε εν εμοι χ̅ς̅ ο δε νυν ζω εν σαρκι εν
    πιστει] ζω τη του θ̅υ̅ και χ̅ρ̅υ̅ του αγαπησαν
    τος με και] π[αρα]δον̣τος εαυτον ϋπερ εμου
    [Philip Comfort & Barrett, D. P. (2001). The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (315)].

    Personally the “of” verses “in” debate is silly when we contemplate what the passage says: as Christians, it is Christ who lives in me.

    Rob
     
  5. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apostacy

    I beg to differ - This is a major doctrinal difference - especially Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 - It is either Christ's faith or your faith. In Gal 2:16 if "faith in" then it is your faith (in Christ) then scruptural justificaltion and eternal security go out the window. You folks either "can't see" it or do not want to see it

    I beginning to think some of you may not fully grasp just what justification really is - in fact I know one of you here does not hold to eternal security of the believer meaning that you do not grasp justification. A man that believes he can lose it does not understand scriptural justification.

    Of course the majority of "christianity" believes in a works salvation anyway and do not hold to eternal security. Interesting - the majority of "christianity" stands behind the modern versions.

    Silly you say? Now it appears that saints can read any ole book that they like and believe whatever they want.

    I think I've had enough again - I can say no more - I leave you folks.
     
    #5 AVBunyan, Nov 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2006
  6. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Guess I'll defer to the second post in reiterating that there is not much difference, between the two, particularly in light of Galatians 2:26 (KJV).

    Perhaps you're been led astray by the 16th century English.

    Rob
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The of reading tends to convey the idea "I live by Jesus' faith." In other words it is Jesus' faith that sustains. The in reading clarifies the thought to show "I live by faith in Jesus." Faith is a gift from God that we possess, and it is not something we attain on our own.


    Although there are times when the KJV has the preferable reading, this is definitely not one of those times.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    AVBunyan:I beg to differ - This is a major doctrinal difference - especially Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 - It is either Christ's faith or your faith. In Gal 2:16 if "faith in" then it is your faith (in Christ) then scruptural justificaltion and eternal security go out the window. You folks either "can't see" it or do not want to see it

    Again, I ask...Does CHRIST have faith? After all, HE IS GOD, having made everything there is. What is left for Him to have faith in, since He made all, has seen all, and knows all? He doesn't have faith in His Father; He has SURE, EMPIRICAL, FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of His Father.

    Actually, this strengthens OUR faith, knowing we have placed our faith in the all-powerful God who can do anything and whose word always comes to pass. To say HE has faith is implying there's something more powerful than Himself in which He has placed His faith.

    I beginning to think some of you may not fully grasp just what justification really is - in fact I know one of you here does not hold to eternal security of the believer meaning that you do not grasp justification. A man that believes he can lose it does not understand scriptural justification.

    Actually, we have someone trying to complicate the simplicity that's in Christ. That simplicity is that when we come to Christ in belief, repentance, and subjection, He justifies us to His Father, who has given Him all judgment over all mankind. That means that when Jesus justifies one, Yahweh accepts that justification unconditionally.

    And last time I checked, every Bible I own contains Hebrews 6:4-6.

    Of course the majority of "christianity" believes in a works salvation anyway and do not hold to eternal security. Interesting - the majority of "christianity" stands behind the modern versions.

    Actually, we believe in WORKS WITH FAITH, as faith w/o works is dead. And you remind me of some others who believe only the parts of their bibles they wanna believe because it fits their man-made notions. What parta Hebrews 6:4-6 dontcha understand?

    Silly you say? Now it appears that saints can read any ole book that they like and believe whatever they want.

    That sounds exactly like some advocates I know of a certain doctrine , believing only those parts of their chosen Bible version that fit their agendas, trying to re-interpret certain Scriptures to match their tastes.

    Actually, today's saints are free of many of the man-made doctrines not found in Scripture. And they are no more limited to "just one book" than GOD HIMSELF is. You just cannot accept that fact, can you?

    I think I've had enough again - I can say no more - I leave you folks.

    Before ya leave, please tell us what Christ's faith is in. The ONLY possible Being for Christ to have faith in is HIS FATHER...And, as they were together before the creation, and, as He stated He & His Father are one, He has sure, complete, and firsthand knowledge of His Father. His father is NOT unseen to Jesus! WE are the ones who have faith. WE are the ones who NEED faith. WE are the ones who cannot see everything now, who hope for things, believing in things unseen from the evidence God has given us. WHAT IS UNSEEN BY CHRIST? While WE have faith, HE has sure knowledge!

    Fact is, "faith OF Christ" in Gal. 2:20 refers to OUR faith IN Christ.
     
  9. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just curious and I'll leave this thread alone - really.

    Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

    Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
    Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

    What is the difference? Why is the “his” left out in Paul’s epistles?
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Habakkuk 2:2 identifies the speaker as the LORD: "his faith" (2:4) is the faith of the one spoken about, "the one who reads it" (2:2).

    This is implied in the NT verses above.

    Rob
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Well, sports fanzz, do we agree that the "of" in the KJV is equivalent to the "in" as found in newer versions?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...