The Roman Bible...grow into salvation??

Most other versions say, "grow IN your salvation".

 

amity:

>The New American Version (the roman bible)... says we "grow into salvation"...

>1 Peter 2:2 like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation,

>This would seem to imply works to achieve salvation...

>KJB: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

Given that the NAB is a Roman Catholic Bible, I would not be surprised to see a particular slant in translation. However, in the present case there are two separate factors involved that do *not* involve the NAB:

1. The KJV phrase "of the word" is *not* present in the Greek. *All* Greek NT editions -- including the TR underlying the KJV -- read there as follows: TO LOGIKON ADOLON GALA EPIPOQHSATE; literally "long fror the reasonable unadulterated milk".

The KJV translators *added* the phrase "of the word" here, and *failed* to inform their readers of the fact by the use of italic type!

Therefore, the presumed conclusion that was based entirely on the *unauthorized* added words (i.e., "There is only one person whom I know that would not want to see "sincere milk of the word" in there... that would be Satan") *fails* and is shown to be nonsense (unless someone wants to claim the unsupported KJV addition as "advanced revelation").

2. The presence or absence of the phrase EIS SWTHRIAN ("into salvation") reflects a textual variant, in which the Byzantine MSS lack the phrase, and the Alexandrian and Caesarean MSS contain it.

I happen to regard that clause as a marginal gloss that happened to find its way into the Alexandrian archetype (almost the same group of MSS clearly get the text wrong in the very next verse when they read OTI CRISTOS O KURIOS ["that the Lord (is) Christ"], against *all* Greek NT editions that have the correct OTI CRHSTOS O KURIOS ["that the Lord is pleasant/gracious").

But even were "growing into salvation" original, this would not imply anything more than progressive sanctification, following the sense elsewhere present in scripture regarding salvation in the three aspects: whereby we "have been saved", "are being saved", and "will be saved".

The same phrase (EIS SWTHRIAN) occurs in Php 1:19, where, if taken in the same wrong sense as in 1Pet 2:2 above, easily could imply that Paul hopes that his *work* of preaching Christ will "turn to my salvation"). But obviously this is *not* what Paul was saying, any more than growing "into salvation" in 2Pet 2:2 implies a works-based salvation as opposed to the normal sancticiation process.

 

Hey Ziggy! Sounds like you've been watching and listening to much EWTN!

 

Amity: " ... still so ridiculous to me how
EVERY version discussion turns into
bashing the AV1611 in this forum!! "

You have yet to know enough about this
forum to make statements like that.

First you should know that most people
who come here claiming NOT to be KJVO
have not read the excellent article at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1993.html

called: Definitions of KJV Only

By that article I'm a KJVO#1, which are you?

BTW, i really get irritated at people who
throw "AV1611" around. Generally they don't
use the AV (Authorized Version)
nor the KJV1611. I've got three KJVs
on my computer desk that are different:

1. The actual KJV1611 which is an AV
2. the KJV1769 which is not an AV
3. The KJV1873 which is not an AV

Most people in the USofA who use a
KJV or call what they use a KJB are
using some form of the KJV1769.

In 1762 the King of England authorized
Oxford to produce a KJV.
In 1769 the King of England authorized
Cambridge to produce a KJV.
In 1776 the USofA rebelled against the
King of England and his stamp tax
including the tax on the KJV.
Many printers in the USofA started
printing copies of the KJV and not paying
royalty to the King of England on it.
They even put "Authorized Version" on them,
which was a lie.

Think of that, most KJVOs unknowingly
think their KJB is an AV1611 and hardly
any of them have one.

So no, we do not bash the AV1611 here only
people who talk about a AV1611
of which they don't have no copy.

BTW, if your KJB does not identify itself
as one of:

KJV1611
KJV1769 (also KJV1762 and American rip-offs)
KJV1783
(the three most commonly still for sale
KJVs in the USofA)

then chances are it is a unauthorized
KJV1769.

 

Ed beats you over the head with his
TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE (Zondervan, 2000)
containing:

NIV = New International Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition
KJV1873 = King James Version
NLT = New Living Translation

Nothing like a four barrelled
canon (cannon) for heavy duty
Bible bashin'

 

Zondervan also publishes KJVs! Gasp!

 

How is pointing out an obvious error, mistranslation in the KJV "bashing"?

 

My KJB was not, it was published by Oxford. I will never purchase anything published by Zondervan. </font>[/QUOTE]You may never want to buy anything from anybody. Because I am fairly sure that most stores, publishers, etc. have at least some connection to satanist, athiests, anti-christian activists, etc., so anything you buy could possibly go to help support one of these groups.

I'll leave this alone now because better judgement tells me I could take this too far.

 

Oxford also publishes things like the "Occult Illustrated Dictionary"

 

Amity: "The publish both. Knowing this, will you
still support Zondervan, which in fact would be
supporting its owning company that produces the satanic bible?"

No problem with me.

Did you know that all the companies that shipping stuff
like Bibles are also shipping soft porn around the
country? Shouldn't you boycott the US Postal Service?

Actually my boycotting stuff dates from the 1970s.
I've been boycotting orange juice from Florida
because the Florida Orange Juice organization fired
Anita Bryant for being harsh about homosexuals.

I've been boycotting L.Ron Hubbard, founder
of Scienceology for even longer. In 1985 I was
even "right next door" to his science fiction writers,
well, in cyber space that is
So i've never read his SF. In fact, he was a SF writer
before he was the high priest of Scienceology.
SF has the story that he figured out SF was not the
way to go to get rich. So he started a phony religion
called Sciencology (Banned in Germany), became a
millionare false prophet, and let somebody else
hack his SF. At least i hear they did better than he
could

 

amity: "oh boy, not another KJO bashing"

yabba: "How is pointing out an obvious error, mistranslation in the KJV "bashing"?"

Actually the issue was "mistranslation bashing" -- from whatever quarter it might come. Amity just happened to quote the KJV as supposedly more correct than the Roman Catholic NAB, so the KJV became an issue by default.

Let me put the same discussion in perspective:

The NKJV *also* renders 1Pet 2:2 "desire the pure milk **of the word**, that you may grow thereby".

So too the NASV: "long for the pure milk **of the word**, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation"

The same comments and critque apply to these versions as well.

 

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of the
earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'].

You may be surprised to learn that the Great Bible (one of the Bibles of which the KJV was
a revision) also has "unto salvation" at the end of 1 Peter 2:2. The Spanish Bible of that day
that was consulted by the KJV translators also
had the Spanish for "unto salvation" at 1 Peter 2:2. The old Peshitta Syriac Bible that is placed on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles also has in Syriac the words "unto
salvation" at this verse.

Should KJV-only advocates discuss how this
reading got into their own line of good Bibles
before they condemn other translations for also having it?

 

Hi yabba,

Welcome to the Baptist Board!

I pray that we will be a blessing to you, and you to us.