I went through this before, I think within the year. The word translated "What is behind" appears, I think 4 or 5 times in the NT. Every other time, the KJV (and this is why I now have to look at Tyndale as well) translates it with a sense of "what is lacking." Only in this instance do they use this "what is behind" stuff.
What the Protestant "Analogy of Faith" means on the ground is that some guys in robes get to decide what the MAIN meaning of the MAIN scriptures are. Then they appear to mistranslate this passage because the plain sense of the Greek does not comport with what they think the main meanings are.
In my view, this is incredibly dishonest. Though I don't think it stands up to candid and careful analysis, I can see the good reasons for a Sola Scripture line of thought. And ditto for Sola Fide. But to cry Sola Scriptura while monkeying around with the translation in what certainly APPEARS to be an effort to make it comport with Sola Fide, that is very wrong.
It is also strangely indicative of the nastiness of this thread to say that I object for theological reasons. The FACT is that I encountered this text before I even thought of swimming the Tiber, back when I was greatly under the influence of neo-orthodoxy.
Even then, even the most Calvin-besotted of my faculty, we all agreed the text said what it truly says, and none of this "what is behind". We agreed and we wondered.
It appears, Mr. Iscool, that you maintain that no one (or maybe it's just no Catholic) could or would come to the text in humility to see what the text said. You charge, or insinuate, that my objection is because of my theology.
Of course, this knocks all of Sola Scriptura in a cocked hat OR, at the very best, makes it circular. "We are right to determine what the Scriptures say because we are right about what they say."
SOome very ill-advised words are currently being used to charge us with thinking we control God. But here you are demonstrating that you think your side can control the Word of God. You are saying you know what it MUST mean before you translate it, because you know what the rest of it means. And this is no over-the-top rhetoric.
Put it another way: (1)Translate the word according to its common meaning, and you have a challenge, a mystery, right there in the Bible.
(2)Use another, peculiar, incomprehensible, and rare meaning of the word, and the Bible says just what you think it SHOULD say, all tidy and easy to understand.
You chose the God that fits in a box.
I'll choose the one that fits in a manger, who fits in my heart only by breaking it.
Well said. Thank you.
“Who fits in my heart only by breaking it...” — just lovely.
If you are referring to Col 1:24, I don’t see any attempt to deceive in Tyndale’s translation. If it is left as he translated:
24 Now ioye I in my soferinges which I suffre for you and fulfill that which is behynde of the passions of Christ in my flesshe for his bodies sake which is the congregacion
then I would apply that the same as the NASB: “24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”
Now, I’m going to claim some special insight into this verse that many theologians don’t have. I spent 25 years in the military. I deployed far more often than I can remember. I couldn’t count the times I pulled my butt out of the sack for a 0130 or 0200 start time. My final deployment to a combat zone was as a 49 year old officer to Afghanistan, and I specifically requested (and was granted) NOT to go to Bagram, where 5000 Americans have 3 hot meals a day and many have private rooms with internet access. FWIW, I was at Sharana and Jalalabad - both large FOBs, but I was too senior to get sent to anyplace smaller.
What did Paul mean when he said, “24 Now ioye I in my soferinges which I suffre for you and fulfill that which is behynde of the passions of Christ in my flesshe for his bodies sake which is the congregacion”?
He meant he was glad he wasn’t a REMF. He was thrilled not to be a REMF. He didn’t want to be a Christian REMF.
And if anyone doesn’t understand what REMF means, google it or ask. A hint can be found here:
http://www.vietvet.org/remfday.htm
Two times...Once with lacking, once with behind...
What the Protestant "Analogy of Faith" means on the ground is that some guys in robes get to decide what the MAIN meaning of the MAIN scriptures are. Then they appear to mistranslate this passage because the plain sense of the Greek does not comport with what they think the main meanings are.
Nonsense...You are spending too much time on your Catholic theology and not enough time in the scriptures...
Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
Paul wasn't lacking in afflictions of Christ in his flesh...Paul had plenty of afflictions...But he said he was behind, NOT completely lacking...
The KJV translators knew this...I know this...Somehow, you missed the boat...
The word used for lacking is also legitimate in the use of behind...It was translated correctly...