Translation problem Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

Hey, John--just some grammar. :laugh:

 

I believe it is the word of God expressing the importance of why Christ died and that this same Jesus, although we refer to Him as Jesus Christ and also Christ Jesus, is alive and that Christ is dead as he being the crucified one.

 

I see this as yet another example of how English has changed.

Christ is dead in vain.
Christ's death was in vain
Christ died in vain

does it really matter?

I think those of us who do not speak or properly understand 17th English can be too quick to accuse the guys who did of making mistakes with the language they knew.

 

Perhaps those among the translators who were Anglo-Catholics, such as Lancelot and Roger Andrewes, thought this verse pertained to their Eucharist where Christ is literally in the bread, crucified/re-crucified, and dead.

 

It might matter to people who are reading the Bible for the first time in their life and that Bible happens to contain 17th century Jacobean English.

 

Can anyone show us any real difference? "Is dead" and died are the same as Pastor_Bob already stated, but talk about dragging a dead horse!:laugh: The horse is dead, and for those who are having trouble understanding, the horse DIED!

 

Um, just as Galatians 2:21 states contrary to keeping the law.

Galatians 2:21 has to be taken in context or your insinuation causes the guilt of stealing away from the word of God.

 

The first four are done with just slight modernizing .

Wycliffe ( 1395 ) : ... then Christ died in vain .

Tyndale ( 1526 ) : ... then Christ died in vain .

Coverdale ( 1535 ) : ... then Christ died in vain .

Geneva ( 1587 ) : ... then Christ died without a cause .

Daniel Mace N.T. ( 1729 ) : ... Christ died to no purpose .

 

Good question. Perhaps they were commended to follow the Bishop's Bible where possible?

"Christe is dead in vayne."

 

Else Christ is dead in vain/Else Christ died in vain say the same thing as Pastor_Bob already stated.


I don't think you really meant the following,"there exists nothing in Greek or otherwise that would indicate that Paul intended to argue that the conclusion of his argument would not only entail that Christ had died for no reason but that he had not been raised".

You're way off on the deep end with that one. The text is clear.

 

Another totally useless thread used to attack the KJB.

 

Your point is well taken. However, I still think we err when we jump to the conclusion that a mistake was made simply because it doesn't look right to us.

I wish we could think with 17th century minds so that we could know that that meant when they read it. But we can't, and therefore, because of the excellent track record of the KJV translators I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

The KJV messed-up on that one . Even the 2nd Wycliffe Bible written 216 before the 1611 had it right . The KJV revisors made the wording too complicated by following the Bishop's Bible here ( and elsewhere ) . Again the superiority of the original Tyndale translation is seen with its clear and direct English . Go William !!