CSB?

This was from my #30 post. I reminded you again in post 60. You have been ignoring it. Why?

This thread is about the CSB. You claim to have read through it.

I'll ask you again: Do you have any problem about the way the CSB translated those 25 verses in James? This will require
you to actually read and digest the content.

 

Actually, It's your post #36 and Y1 answered in post #37.

 

You are right. It was post 36, and as I said posted again in #60.

But you are quite wrong in saying he "answered" it. He certainly did not. He can't just say those 25 verses met some guidelines.
He has to actually read the verses and then comment. It's called interaction. He is averse to that.

 

Except that was known to be a Messianic Psalm, and the Spirit Himself testified to that!

 

No. It's not a question of the texts.

 

Psalm 24:3-5, NIV 2011.
'Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

If I were preaching from these verses, I would refer them to the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that. He has kept the law of God perfectly and has entered into the Holy Place as our forerunner (Hebrews 6:20; 9:12). But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured.

You have shifted to Psalm 8/Hebrews 2 here. There are textual variants in Heb 2, but they don't affect singular and plural. Verse 7 has auton, 'him' and verse 8 has autou, 'his' in all MSS. I'm glad that the NIV gives the proper translation in the footnotes, but most readers will not consult those. 'Them' (v.7) and 'their' (v.8) appear in no ancient manuscripts and are a fabrication of the translators who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

It is wrong because it is a mistranslation. Andres adelphoi cannot mean 'brothers and sisters.' Is this the word of God or is it not? If we are agreed that it is, it must be translated humbly and accurately. Andres =man (member of the male sex). Adelphoi = brethren. 'Men and brethren' as per the NKJV. There is no possible reason to translate it any other way. I would say that undoubtedly there were no women at the Council of Jerusalem. Certainly none are mentioned and it was the 'apostles and elders' who met (Acts 15:6). Perhaps that's why it was concluded so quickly and amicably

As I pointed out before, there is another serious point here. If andres adelphoi can be translated 'brothers and sisters' in Acts 15:7 & 14, why not in Acts 2:37? '....and [they] said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers and sisters, what shall we do?"' And, Hey presto! You have female apostles.

 

Oh boy! I'll try just once more and then I'm finished here. You are entitled to believe whatever you want about these passages. Being honestly wrong is OK, really. What no one is entitled to do is to change the Bible to prevent people from coming to a legitimate conclusion. That is what the JWs do. By turning singulars into plurals, the NIV translators have done just that. It no doubt brings pleasure and delight to extreme feminists, and to transgenderists who like to be referred to as 'they,' but it prevents the Christian from finding Christ in all the Scriptures, which is what we are supposed to do (John 5:37; Luke 24:27).

 

The above is bogus junk.

 

"Psalm 8, both in its Old Testament context and in its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (Fee and Strauss)

 

Even in the CSG, it says in B1 : "...the plural adelphoi can be translated 'brothers and sisters' where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women."

 

On another well-known board someone once said: " Hebrews 2 is often pointed to as compromising on Jesus by changing 'son of man' to 'human beings.' That translation is less literal. But even conservative complementarians point out that 'son of man' isn't being used Christologically there."

 

Read it. Don't agree with it.

 

Brother, you are still missing my point. Please go back and read my post #112 again. I haven't time to post the same argument over and over again, but I must be doing it very badly because no one's taking any notice of it.

For crying out loud, everybody knows that adelphoi can refer to both men and women, but andres adelphoi can only refer to men. Moreover the context makes it absolutely clear that the company was exclusively male. Acts 15:6-7. 'Now the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them.........' What did he say? Were there female apostles and female elders there? Yes or no?