Why Did The TR...

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you as if you had actually denigrated the character of the KJB translators, but I do see it here and very often.

The implication of the Greek shows that anything that is contrary to the truth espoused is something God forbids.

Paul was writing under inspiration. Anything that is not wholistically the truth is against what we find in a sort of formula for Christian living in Phil 4:8 and God forbids.

It has nothing to do with 17th century idioms and is not in the power of a man's tongue to dictate either way.

"God forbid" is very distinct in that it relates to the hearer the things identified are either according to the will of God or against it as laid out by the Lord Himself.

 

I'm so sorry, but I cannot, nor will not, try to separate "God"/theos from any portion of Scripture that helps establish the will of God for all men.

Since His thoughts are above anything "soaked in sound reasoning", I will have to stick with the Scripture and the Lord who gave it to us.:sleeping_2:

 

But the scripture does not include "theos" in the phrase "me genoito." I will stick with the scriptures and the Lord who gave it to us.

 

I have often stated that the phrase "God forbid" appears quite often in other 15th to 18th century English literature I've read. It was a common stronger negative, stronger than a simple "no" & was apparently never thought of as an improper use of God's name.

I see nothing wrong with its use in the KJV, but it DOES serve notice to those who criticize other versions for using some dynamic equivalence that the AV men did the same thing when the context called for a stronger negative.

Fact is, EVERY translation is marked in places by translators' opinions. The KJVOs are gonna hafta find themselves something else to argue about.

 

The phrase in context includes the need for the expression to determine the intent from Greek into English, else sin lieth at an open door.

 

Your tough Sal, everyone here agrees it is a valid translation and yet still you argue.

You cannot make "theos" appear in the phrase "me genoito" however. It is just not there.

 

Valid if you prefer DE to a more formal equivalence.
>
>
>
>
>
Oh, wait a minute?? Isn't DE what some less than stellar translations are supposed to do?? Surely a better translation would not do...

Oh, Never mind!

Ed

 

Forget what the Oxford dictionary said?

Please tell me why 1526 NT, 1537 NT, 1557 NT, the 1611 KJV, and 1769 KJV have "God forbid" on Romans 6:2? Complain? You see, how did God provide us His Words in them? When the Scripture in English said, "God forbid," do you accept God-speaking or reject it?

 

The Oxford dictionary is not scripture.

One more time - I PREFER the KJV translators choice of words here, I think it conveys the thought of "me genoito" accurately. But "Theos" is NOT in any Greek manuscript.

God did not give us the translation - "God forbid." He allowed human translators to do that and it is an EXCELLENT choice.

BTW my friend, your scurrilous implication that because I don't agree with you I reject God's word is patently offensive. But wait, I do agree that this is a good translation . I'm confused now.

 

Sorry Ed, I honestly don't see this in the same vein as dynamic equivalence. Call it my stubborn bias to the KJV if you will, but this was an instance of what happens in any type of translation. In the minds of the translating team "God forbid" was the literal rendering of the phrase "me genoito" in the language of 1611.

Even if I accede to the calling this instance of translation DE, it does not change the philosophy of the translators who sought a literal translation. DE openly calls for a thought to thought translation.

 

Since I have no internet connection at the house I am in at the present, I was not able to copy and paste the reference in The Pulpit Commentary regarding this issue. But to convey what I had stated all along, to render the impact necessary to the reader of the New Testament, "God forbid" is grammatically perfect to give the due intent of the Greek in each use of the English expression.

Idiomatic, or not, "God forbid" places an emphasis on the preceding phrases and the proceeding phrases in each case which other simple renderings are found lacking and incapable of relating the view of the One who inspired the Scripture.

Of course that has everything to do with verbal and plenary inspiration, of which many here seem to disagree.

Remove "God forbid" if you so desire, but that would ultimately be to your demise in that you would be watering down the word of God to fit your intellect.

(Brother Roger, I am NOT arguing with you, but I will continue to inform you if you find this necessary. My staement above is not directed towards you specifically.:sleeping_2: )

 

Thanks for that, Salamander.

I readily admit to not knowing NT Greek (apart from a few words such as "agape"), but I would question whether it is right to translate implications. There are many passages of Scripture where God's people are commanded by Him to do, or not to do something, that do not mention God as the "Forbidder", or as the only One Who can enable His people to obey. Colossians 3.8-10, for instance:

8 ¶ But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:​

I wholeheartedly agree that Paul (like the other human "penmen" of the bible) was writing under inspiration. I also agree that everything impure, untrue, unjust, ignoble, etc. is forbidden by God. However, I understand from "Strong's" that the word(s) translated in the AV/KJV are in something called the optative mood, which Strong describes as expressing "a wish or desire for an action to occur in which the completion of such is doubtful." If that is so (and my lack of Greek prevents me being dogmatic on this), the phrase is asking for something to happen, not stating something which has already happened.

The question then arises (at least in my mind): If "God forbid" was not a 17th century idiom in English, why did the translators choose that phrase to translate a Greek phrase where "God" is not mentioned? (I am afraid I am not sure what you mean by: "and is not in the power of a man's tongue to dictate either way. "

But are there not numerous things forbidden by God which do not have the English phrase, "God forbid" attached to them?

 

You are correct, Roger (and its not just a "stubborn bias" on your part). I think there are some folks that find delight in accusing the KJV of DE. Some folks seem unwilling to admit that idioms, when properly translated for reader comprehension, cannot be rendered word-for-word; but that alone does not constitute a departure from formal equivalence methodology. Perhaps it is more accurate to state that dynamic versions are often guilty of being inconsistently literal with idioms.

 

What I found wasn't the optative mood but rather the dative mood in The Pulpit Commentary.

What is consistent in the usage of "God forbid" in the Book of Romans is the dialogue Paul gives as if he is already answering the questions which might arise to what he had previously stated.

The dative "God forbid" is grammatically perfect to render to the reader the impact of the proceeding Biblical truth as the answer to any question to what the will of God is for the reader.

Anything less, as stated by the authors in The Pulpit Commentary, and they do give examples, is doing the word of God harm in not placing the necessary emphasis on the reflection to the previous phrase.

I love being educated in Biblical matters, especially when there are accusations against the KJB, and as always, they are unfounded. ( no leg to stand upon):godisgood:

 

Nope, they got it right, so as to leave no room for errorin the doctrine.

Of course if you wish to go head to head and produce your own concise commentary I suppose you will have followers.

The sense is right that the dative enhances the Greek in this case, though it might not every case, else II Tim 3:16 is in danger of being incorrect.

Of course there are those who inadvertantly help the devil's cause to disannul the word of God. But in this case, enhancement over-rules.:godisgood:

 

I always understood that "dative" referred to nouns, not verbs. One web site on New Testament Greek, at: http://www.bibletruths.net/Greek Course/Lesson Six of Online Greek Course.htm says:

Greek nouns, just as in English, have cases. Greek nouns are grouped into three categories, called declensions......The dative case is the case of the indirect object. Thus lego logou apostoloiV means "I say a word to apostles." The dative has many other important uses that must be learned by observation. ​

I have The Pulpit Commentary on my computer, and I tried looking for the phrase "God forbid", but there were so many I did not have time to look up every one. But I somehow doubt that its authors would say that a verb was in the dative case.

 

I can't believe that we have 12 PAGES of discussion about 2 WORDS. It's an IDIOM, not a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith! Of course, someone will disagree and that will probably carry us on to page 20. :laugh:

 

Mine ears are open, but to what only some will offer in great detail.

You have isolated a phrase and come to a conclusion.

Those authors in The Pulpit Commentary made several observations by examining an entire sentence in the Greek, thus they came to their conclusion that "God forbid" translated into the English was necessary to convey the contextual meaning of the Greek to be precise and have the impact the word of God deserves to have on the hearer.