Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187428 | ||
1. You say, "Unrepentance is not a habit or an attitude...therefore, God must change that nature." Are you suggesting that repentance is an impossibility unless God does something physical to man's natural or spiritual substance? Or, that repentance is some form of physical/spiritual substance that God places into a man in order to "change that nature"? 2. 1 Cor 1:27-28 merely describes the character or condition of those when chosen and who made the choice; it does not say how that choice was made. 3. Are you suggesting that the TEV is not a reliable translation. In the TEV preface of the NT: "The primary concern of the translators has been to provide a faithful translation of the Greek text." It would seem their aim is the same as the NASB or ESV translators. I also prefer the NASB in my studies but refer to that version where I feel the translation gives the better meaning that is intended. Therefore, what God is giving is not "repentance" itself but the opportunity to repent. 4. To answer your question: God is grants men the opportunity to change, that is to repent. Whether they repent or not is up to them. I can only suggest that your question presupposes an erroneous concept of what is repentance. |
||||||
2 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Hank | 187430 | ||
Dear Lookn4 - Unless I completely misread Hopalong's post, I don't think he said that the TEV version is unreliable. What he did say in essence is that he looks on the NASB and ESV as being more literal translations, and so do I. The aim of the TEV translators may indeed be "to provide a faithful translation of the Greek text" as stated in their Preface. And, yes, their aim is the therefore the same as the translators of the NASB and ESV. But the TEV method of achieving this end differs from the methods employed by both the NASB and ESV. The TEV is a so-called thought-for-thought version, a method that relies heavily on paraphrase. The translators propose to tell us, not necessairly what the original writers said, but what they, the translators, think the writers meant by what they said. This not only places an enormous responsibility on the translators to "get it right," but puts the reader in the ignominious position of having the word of God filtered through the minds of the translators. The TEV is by no means the only paraphrased version on the booksellers' shelves. New International Version (and its variants), New Living Translation, and the Message are other examples of paraphrased versions. And there are many more. ....... The New American Standard Bible, King James and New King James Versions, and one of the most recent, the English Standard Version are examples of formal translations, i.e., word-for-word, that seek to be as transparent as possible to the ancient manuscripts. I recommend all the formal translations that I've named here. I do not recommend any of the paraphrases, not even for reading, and certainly not for study. ...... You may have heard the argument, which I deem specious, that a paraphrase is easier to understand than a literal translation. This is simply not true. And even if it were, have we become so mentally lazy that we want everything, including the word of God, spoon fed to us? A nursery rhyme is easier than a Shakespearean sonnet, but do we want to continue to read at the nursery rhyme level all our lives? ..... I'm not preaching to you (not at all, because you note a preference for the NASB in your studies), but I am posting this for the consideration of all our Forum readers, some of whom at various times have expressed a preference for the paraphrases over the literals on the grounds of their being easier to understand. I'm afraid they may have bought the hype of the publishers of these loose translations who, after all, must come up with some excuse for peddling their wares. They will also tell you that it's necessary to put out a new translation every year or two because language is changing. If language were changing as rapidly as they would have us believe, we'd all have to re-learn English about every other year! This is utter baloney. I'm still using the same English I learned when I was two years old -- although I may have added a few words to my vocabularly and polished up my syntax a bit since then -- and that was exactly 70 years ago! Even the venerable Old King James Bible of 1611 is still readable, though admittedly somewhat dated, and the average reader may need a few footnotes to help him with some of the Elizabethan vocabulary and locutions. But its music and poetry, its majesty and charm, have never been equaled. After all these years, it remains "the noblest monument to English prose." ...... By the way, on the topic of repentance, I've thought for some time that to repent (Gr. metanoeo) means to change one's mind, to make an about face. It is not merely sorrow but involves a complete change of attitude regarding God and sin. Biblical repentance does not arise within man himself but is the result of God's mercy in leading man to it. See Acts 5:31, Romans 2:4, and 2 Timothy 2:25. Thus repentance involves the very process of conversion whereby men are regenerated. ..... Grace to you. --Hank | ||||||
3 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187438 | ||
Regarding your note on "repentance": 1. Act 5:31. "grant repentance", again, speaks of God giving sinners the opportunity to repent. 2. Rom 2:4. "kindness of God leads to repentance," which again considers God giving sinners the opportunity to repent by not exacting punishment swiftly: "kindness...forbearance...patience". 3. 2 Tim 2:25. See (1) above and my previouse note. Again, what is granted here is not "repentance" itself but the opportunity to repent. As the NAS translates it, I had never understood it as God giving "repentance" itself as if it were a thing of some substance; but it was always understood as giving opportunity. To me that's the natural and obvious understanding of the text. It is like when someone says, "I grant you freedom," it is not giving "freedom" as if it were a thing of substance, but as allowing the person to go on his own. The problem is not so much translation but interpretion. Repentance is involved in the process of conversion but it is something God commands men to do; it is not some thing that he puts in them to do. It is an change of attitude and lifestyle in response to God's kindness that the sinner must make. Please do not take offense but, if I understand your response correctly, as far as I can tell from my reading of the Bible, the interpretation you suggest goes far beyond the meaning of the verses cited; at least that seems to be where the problem lies: in interpretation, not translation. |
||||||