Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
This is your experiment, not mine. The burden of proof is on you. You said you would demonstrate free will and you have not.
That is apparently your opinion, but I am not interested in opinions. I am interested in what the scripture has to say on the subject. The scripture (Eph 2:10) says, He prepares, we walk.
Then I'm in luck because the KJV is a great translation.
Unlike the Roman Catholic bible which presumes extra-Scriptural books to be inspired by God when they were not and which have led Rome to all sorts of idolatry and error.
Yep. And nowhere does it say we won’t walk.
Thanks for agreeing with the reformed Christian perspective.
Spot on, Alex. In other words, προετοιμάζω was translated differently when it was profitable to insert support for the Reformed doctrine into the scripture, so it could quoted as the "pristine" word of God.
You "cover a lot of ground" therein -- much of it not familiar to my experience or realm of thought. Please bear with me while I take the necessary time to read, re-reread, digest, and respond...
Try again. The words translate to the same idea - saved by grace and grace alone. Our good works are the evidence of our salvation, the fruit of the Spirit, and not a requirement for our salvation.
God's grace is the only requirement. With that, all else falls into place.
Au contraire. You are replying to my query: Did you determine how you would answer the question or not?
I'm asking how you pronounce your choice.
And your answer is... ?
Especially the NIV. It changes whole snetences! However, systematic substitution of words was and is not something only the Protestants enagged in.
I said it was a mistake because the New King James Version (NKJV) corrects Eph. 20:10 with a correct translation. It is very possible that the translator was simply doing what so many others have done when faced with a difficult verse: simply translate it to fit doctrine by picking a "better" word.
By the 16th century, Bible scholars were becoming aware of the variations in biblical texts, but it didn't really become a full-blown scandal until John Mill published his Apparatus on the New Testament in 1707 with some 30,000 documented variants (he left out minor ones such as word order which is not significant in Greek) based on mere 100 Greek manuscripts! Today, we know of about 57,000 manuscripts and a minimum of 200,000 variants.
Most people who read modern-day Bible versions have no clue how these Bible versions came about; most of them don't even realize that they are reading a translation or that it might contain errors.
They trust that centuries of transmission produced flawless copies, even those made by hand, that the well learned men who worked on these versions knew exactly what they were doing and, ultimately, that God himself made sure their work was not in any way different from the original.
It really does take a child-like naïvete to find peace that way.
When you get around to demonstrating free will, please show us. Until then, you’ve failed in your attempt.
All this nit-picking is pretty funny coming from apologists who have added uninspired books to the Hebrew canon and the New Testament.
What is this five times? I just asked the question.
The demonstration is yours to do and examine. If you choose not to do one or the other… If you cannot answer the question of whether you determine your own answer, well, that should tell us something.
Either way, it’s your choice and I’m fine with it.
Apparently not, because NKJV corrects it.
The words translate to the same idea
There is only one word we are talking about, and it is translated differently in KJV where it matters doctrinally, to make the scriptures fit the Protestant doctrine.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
[may not be on much tonight . . . have to dial out on the voice circuit on the same line to get the internet DSL connection to work. Crazy!]
The "added books" were part of the Septuagint which was used by Alexandrian Jews as the Tanakh. That is the version used by the authors of the New Testament in over 90% of references to the OT.
The New testament was written in Greek for Greek-speaking Jews first and formost and to Greke coverts. So, why wouldn't they have used the Septuagint and its books? I fit was goo enough for the Apostles, it was good neough for the Church.
What you cionsider Hebrew scirpture is really only the Phatrisaical colleciton of books. Obviously other Jewish sects had different canons. The only reason your OT doesn't have "added books" is because only he Pharisees survived, and not because somehow they were "true" Jews and other sects weren't!
And what uninspired books were added to the New Testament? And by whom?
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
AMEN!
THANKS FOR THE PING.
Perhaps you're unaware of the fact but the NKJV was translated by a majority of Calvinists. I doubt they saw the word change as a "correction" for the simple reason that the words mean the same thing.
"Ordained."
"Prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Not "prepared for our consideration to follow through if we're so inclined on alternate Wednesdays when the laundry is finished."
The words mean the same thing.
Additionally, your understanding ignores the first part of the sentence which amplifies and further illustrates the point Paul is making...
"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." - Eph. 2:10
"We are His workmanship." We are as He made us. And the "good works" we do are not ours to "boast" of because they are Christ's good works, mercifully credited to our account.
“should” walk.
Is the greek in this tense? It would seem this would matter in a literal translation: should vs. will or must... for example.
The Orthodox disagree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.