Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "hina" or "opheilo" - Which is it? | Eph 2:10 | smillerx | 165945 | ||
Dear Friends in Christ: I have been studying the Word of God from my NASB Open Bible (Copyright 1977) with the associated NASB Exhaustive Concordance (Copyright 1981) since the early 80’s. I have always trusted this translation as being true to the original texts, but I recently stumbled across a discrepancy. In my Bible Ephesians 2:10 reads as follows: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we should walk in them." My concordance indicates that the word “should” is translated from the Greek “opheilo” (Strongs #3784). I also use an electronic version of the NASB from Laridian (Copyright 2003) on my PDA. Today I noticed on my PDA that Ephesians 2:10 reads: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." The subtle change from “should” to “would” piqued my interest. I assumed that the difference was the result of a minor update in the translation of the original Greek “opheilo”. But to my complete astonishment I found the Greek Concordance on my PDA indicated that the word “would” is translated from the Greek “hina” (Strongs #2443). I checked my Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament by Wigram (Copyright 1979) and also found there that Ephesians 2:10 contains “hina” and not “opheilo”. All of the online concordances I checked indicated that Ephesians 2:10 contains “hina” and not “opheilo”. The online Bible as part of your study forum indicates that Ephesians 2:10 contains “hina” and not “opheilo”. Given the completely different definitions of these Greek words I am now completely confused. Perhaps some Greek manuscripts contain “hina”, while others contain “opheilo”, with the translators discretion as to which is earliest, or most valid. I am sure that the Apostle Paul only penned one of these two words, not both. If it is "hina", then what other errors might I find in my 1977 NASB? Please help clear this up for me. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Steve Miller |
||||||
2 | "hina" or "opheilo" - Which is it? | Eph 2:10 | Morant61 | 165954 | ||
Greetings Steve! Perhaps I can be of some help? I don't have the specific concordance that you reference, but I know from experience that there sometimes difficulties result when a concordance tries to 'reference' every single 'english' word in a translation. I checked and 'ophelio' is not in any Greek manuscript that I could find in Eph. 2:10. 'Hina' is in Eph. 2:10, but that is not really where the 'would' or 'should' comes from in the English translation. 'Hina' is a particle that indicates purpose or result. The 'would' or 'should' comes from the Greek verb 'peripateo'. It is an Aorist, Active, Subjunctive, 1st person, plural verb. The subjunctive voice, along with the 'hina' indicates that it was God's purpose for us to 'walk in good works'. The 'should' or 'would' is a stylistic choice concerning how to translate the meaning of the subjunctive voice. The subjunctive voice deals with potential action, not real action. Thus, the translator must decide which word best brings out the meaning of the verb. Through the years, 'would' or 'should' have sort of been used interchangeably. The meaning of the text is clear - it is God's intention that we walk in good works. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | "hina" or "opheilo" - Which is it? | Eph 2:10 | DocTrinsograce | 165957 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, As always, thank you for the scholarship that you bring to bear in this area for all of our benefit. The ALT translates it, "For we are His workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we should walk about [fig., conduct ourselves] in them." Young's literal translation has, "for of Him we are workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God did before prepare, that in them we may walk." You can see the Amplified version above. Are you comfortable with these renderings of proetoimazo and peripateo? The only other occurance of the former word is Romans 9:23, but there are many examples of the latter word. (I fear that having Strong's at one's fingertips tends to give an illusion of greater linguistic power than is really justified!) In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | How did this error happen! | Eph 2:10 | smillerx | 165963 | ||
If all known manuscripts have the Greek word "hina" (Strongs #2443), I guess my question really is just this: How did the "New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries" - Robert L. Thomas, Th.D., General Editor, Holman Bible Publishers, Copyright 1981 The Lockman Foundation, wind up with the Greek word "opheilo" (Strongs #3784) in Ephesian 2:10 ???????? I find this type of error unacceptable! |
||||||
5 | How did this error happen! | Eph 2:10 | Searcher56 | 165973 | ||
Go ask thenm - not us | ||||||
6 | How did this error happen! | Eph 2:10 | smillerx | 166007 | ||
I have e-mailed the Lockman Foundation at: nasb@lockman.org However, since this forum is sponsoed by the Lockman Foundation, I assumed someone here might be able to help. |
||||||