I did. Did anyone see a version cited to support the idea we have formal equivalence versions that do not use italics?
But I think it is a fair assessment to say a sine qua non of formal equivalence versions is the use of italics (or other means of earmarking) to identify additions by the translators.
What are your thoughts regarding the Lockman Foundation?
Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by alexander284, Dec 20, 2019.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
I have post more than 20 verses where the ESV butchers the truth. For you to claim it is a formal equivalence version shows you have not studied "grammatical transformations" in the ESV. They change nouns into verbs to alter the message. -
alexander284 Well-Known Member
This is quite an interesting dialogue we have here.
Thank you to all contributing parties! -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
alexander284 Well-Known Member
-
It was claimed the ESV which is based on the RSV meets the standard of formal equivalence yet does not use Italics to earmark additions to the text.
Let's look at James 2:5. The addition by the translators "to be" is in italics in the NKJV, LEB, and NASB.
However the addition alters the verse to the opposite message, with the actual text saying those chosen were rich in faith and loved God, whereas the modified text saying they were not yet rich in faith and did not yet love God. -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
You need to think through your theology here a bit.
First, you just said, again, that the standard for formal equivalence is italics but then scream that isn't what you say when I challenge you on it.
Second, regarding James 2:5, do you really think someone is rich in faith before salvation? The answer to that is no. There is none that love God before salvation (Romans 3).
Furthermore, let's look at the Greek. The word for "rich" πλούσιος literally means "to being plentifully supplied with." So you can literally say, "has God not chosen those poor in the world to be plentifully supplied with faith"
So no, it is not changing any meaning to add the words "to be." If anything, it makes the meaning MORE CLEAR and accurate. It is MORE literal than the translations you supplied as a reference. But again, Romans 3 makes clear that there are none that seek after God. So how can they already be rich in faith? That makes no sense biblically and it also makes no sense grammatically. -
I did not say the standard or definition of formal equivalence is italics? Nope, so another fabrication.
Regarding James 2:5 it says what it says, and your doctrine simply rewrites it to nullify it..
On and on they regurgitate the same falsehoods over and over, such as Romans 3 says there are none that seek God "at any time." Of course their little addition is left unstated to hide the falsification. -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.
Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.
Page 2 of 3