Ephesians 2:8 salvation is the gift

[FreeInChrist]

@JesusFan

So, we do not have a bible in our English language that we can 100% trust in as being word of God, is this what you are saying?


We welcome any disagreements.

Good , I do.

Red, I am not totally heck bent and determined to totally discount all the work that Jimmy's men did for that 1611 translation but there are errors... Easter not the least of them. And I will say there are problems with every single trans;lation which can be seen when one does a side by side and compares the translations word by word.

But here is partly where there is a problem that no one has ever considered.

I know were have those iterlinears to see what "they" say any given word or verse is, but at the same time those also were only men agreeing to agree.

Look at Bible hub.... and they have 41 or 42 bibles to quote specific verses and look how often there are so many variations.

Lets use Matt 1:19 and the first 10 translations from Bible GHub....

New International Version
Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

New Living Translation
Joseph, to whom she was engaged, was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement quietly.

English Standard Version
And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Berean Standard Bible
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and was unwilling to disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly.

Berean Literal Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being righteous and not willing to shame her publicly, resolved to divorce her quietly.

King James Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

New King James Version
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

New American Standard Bible
And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

And will add Aramaic

Lamsa Bible
But Joseph her husband was a pious man, and did not wish to make it public; so hewas thinking of divorcing her secretly.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But Yoseph her lord was righteous and did not want to expose her, and he was considering divorcing her secretly.

Each of these says basically the same thing yet there is just enough difference to bring a debate in many cases.

Now... let me use one verse , these same translations... that has been at odds with many... this time I will add Catholic translations....

Matt 1:25

Audio​ Cross​ Study​ Comm​ Greek​ ​ Verse (Click for Chapter)​ New International Version​ But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. New Living Translation​ But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. English Standard Version​ but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Berean Standard Bible​ But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus. Berean Literal Bible​ But he did not know her until she had brought forth a Son, and he called His name Jesus. King James Bible​ And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. New King James Version​ and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. New American Standard Bible​ but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. Lamsa Bible And he did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son; and she called his name Jesus. Aramaic Bible in Plain English And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua. AND Douay-Rheims Bible And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. It was this later verse that says till that I had a heated debate on another forum you are on that has a lot of Catholics and I was knocked down for not knowing that :till" actually means Catholics interpret the word "till" in Matthew 1:25 to mean that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary before Jesus' birth, but it does not imply that they had relations afterward. Finally...Not every wpord in other languages can be translated to English. I have a Colombian friend who when on the telephone will talk spanish but throw English mixed in because some English words there is no match. I believe that is the case so that the translators use their logic to make sense in what they do. ​

​

 

[JesusFan]

@JesusFan

So, we do not have a bible in our English language that we can 100% trust in as being word of God, is this what you are saying?

I for one do believe we have one, that's 100% preserved for us by our God, each and "every single word." You sir, have been listening to the wrong people. Concerning every single word being important, please consider:

Every Word of God

letgodbetrue.com

"We believe our English version to be Scripture as much as the copies and/or translations studied by the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:32,35), the Bereans (Acts 17:11), and Timothy (II Tim 3:15-17). So we believe we should study every word and grammatical construction with great care, for we understand by faith we are reading and studying the very words God intended for us to have.

We take this precise approach to Bible study from our Lord’s instruction. Jesus testified that every jot and tittle (the smallest parts of written language) in Scripture were important, would be fulfilled, and should be obeyed (Matt 5:17-19). He also declared His words – all His words – would be fulfilled with absolute certainty (Matt 24:34-35). And He taught that Scripture cannot be broken, while considering a single word (John 10:35)."

We welcome any disagreements.

The Kjvo position is exactly same as used by Islam, as Muslims hold that the Koran has never been changed or altered period, but they right now have access to 37 Arabic editions, that differ between them in actual wording some 93000 times, and the Kjv 1611 1769 1873 etc also differ i actual wording hundreds of times between them
We do not need a perfect translation, as any reliable translation gives to us the gist, as we need and have really a perfect Savior

 

[JesusFan]

Good , I do.

Red, I am not totally heck bent and determined to totally discount all the work that Jimmy's men did for that 1611 translation but there are errors... Easter not the least of them. And I will say there are problems with every single trans;lation which can be seen when one does a side by side and compares the translations word by word.

But here is partly where there is a problem that no one has ever considered.

I know were have those iterlinears to see what "they" say any given word or verse is, but at the same time those also were only men agreeing to agree.

Look at Bible hub.... and they have 41 or 42 bibles to quote specific verses and look how often there are so many variations.

Lets use Matt 1:19 and the first 10 translations from Bible GHub....

New International Version
Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

New Living Translation
Joseph, to whom she was engaged, was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement quietly.

English Standard Version
And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Berean Standard Bible
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and was unwilling to disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly.

Berean Literal Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being righteous and not willing to shame her publicly, resolved to divorce her quietly.

King James Bible
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

New King James Version
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

New American Standard Bible
And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

And will add Aramaic

Lamsa Bible
But Joseph her husband was a pious man, and did not wish to make it public; so hewas thinking of divorcing her secretly.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But Yoseph her lord was righteous and did not want to expose her, and he was considering divorcing her secretly.

Each of these says basically the same thing yet there is just enough difference to bring a debate in many cases.

Now... let me use one verse , these same translations... that has been at odds with many... this time I will add Catholic translations....

Matt 1:25

​

​ Audio​ ​ Cross​ ​ Study​ ​ Comm​ ​ Greek​ ​ ​ Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. New Living Translation But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. English Standard Version but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Berean Standard Bible But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus. Berean Literal Bible But he did not know her until she had brought forth a Son, and he called His name Jesus. King James Bible And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. New King James Version and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. New American Standard Bible but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. Lamsa Bible And he did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son; and she called his name Jesus. Aramaic Bible in Plain English And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua. AND Douay-Rheims Bible And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. It was this later verse that says till that I had a heated debate on another forum you are on that has a lot of Catholics and I was knocked down for not knowing that :till" actually means Catholics interpret the word "till" in Matthew 1:25 to mean that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary before Jesus' birth, but it does not imply that they had relations afterward. Finally...Not every wpord in other languages can be translated to English. I have a Colombian friend who when on the telephone will talk spanish but throw English mixed in because some English words there is no match. I believe that is the case so that the translators use their logic to make sense in what they do. ​

​

The inspiration and inerrancy was to just the originals as were penned down by the Bible writers, authorized by the Holy Spirit, and any reliable Englsih translation will give to us the gist and main truth that God wanted us to have

 

[brightfame52]

If accepting a gift counted as “works,”

It does. Its something you did

 

[Red Baker]

@JesusFan

The Kjvo position is exactly same as used by Islam, as Muslims hold that the Koran has never been changed or altered period, but they right now have access to 37 Arabic editions, that differ between them in actual wording some 93000 times, and the Kjv 1611 1769 1873 etc also differ i actual wording hundreds of times between them
We do not need a perfect translation, as any reliable translation gives to us the gist, as we need and have really a perfect Savior

You never answered my question. Have a nice life.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The inspiration and inerrancy was to just the originals as were penned down by the Bible writers, authorized by the Holy Spirit, and any reliable Englsih translation will give to us the gist and main truth that God wanted us to have

You know... I really would like to talk more in depth with you about this but there are some points to make before we get to deep.

Explain to me why Jesus was crucified during Passover week, yet the KJV says that Herod intended to keep Peter until after Easter.

The Greek text reads:

ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ.

Meta to pascha literally means “after Passover.”

So if the argument is going to be that Pascha is used for “Easter” in most languages, that still does not solve the problem. In fact, English and German are the unusual ones here. Most languages use a word derived from Pesach (Hebrew) or Pascha (Greek), meaning Passover. English (“Easter”) and German (“Ostern”) are the odd exceptions.

More importantly, during the very week Jesus was crucified there was no scheduled Easter celebration. That observance did not exist at that time.

Nor should it surprise anyone that what many now call “Easter” has accumulated traditions—bunnies, eggs, and other customs—that have nothing to do with the biblical Passover or the events surrounding the crucifixion.

Human traditions have layered extra meaning and symbolism onto holidays that were originally meant to remember the work of our Savior.

We see something similar at Christmas. The name itself comes from “Christ Mass.” Yet instead of focusing on the gift given to us by our Heavenly Father—the birth of Christ—we have turned much of the celebration toward a jolly figure distributing trivial gifts.

Is it any wonder that many children grow up knowing very little about the actual meaning behind these events until they are eight or nine years old? When the focus is shifted away from the biblical message, the result should not surprise us.

Likewise, instead of the solemn reflection that should mark Holy Week, we often see chocolate rabbits, pastel chicks, baskets of candy, and egg hunts. What exactly does that teach children about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

Give me a break.

The reality is that the KJV contains a number of translation choices that have shaped how people read certain passages, and Acts 12:4 is one of the clearest examples. Yet despite issues like this, many still elevate the KJV as though it alone perfectly represents the original message.

I have several other examples that illustrate where meanings have been altered or obscured, but I’ll save those for later. I’m waiting for my real estate agent to arrive so we can go over some paperwork.

But I will be back to continue this discussion. You can count on it.

 

[FreeInChrist]

It does. Its something you did

Alright.

Then when God give us faith that counts as a work opf God but then when we receive that faith we are working. A double works that you cannot escape

 

[atpollard]

You know... I really would like to talk more in depth with you about this but there are some points to make before we get to deep.

Explain to me why Jesus was crucified during Passover week, yet the KJV says that Herod intended to keep Peter until after Easter.

The Greek text reads:

ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ.

Meta to pascha literally means “after Passover.”

So if the argument is going to be that Pascha is used for “Easter” in most languages, that still does not solve the problem. In fact, English and German are the unusual ones here. Most languages use a word derived from Pesach (Hebrew) or Pascha (Greek), meaning Passover. English (“Easter”) and German (“Ostern”) are the odd exceptions.

More importantly, during the very week Jesus was crucified there was no scheduled Easter celebration. That observance did not exist at that time.

Nor should it surprise anyone that what many now call “Easter” has accumulated traditions—bunnies, eggs, and other customs—that have nothing to do with the biblical Passover or the events surrounding the crucifixion.

Human traditions have layered extra meaning and symbolism onto holidays that were originally meant to remember the work of our Savior.

We see something similar at Christmas. The name itself comes from “Christ Mass.” Yet instead of focusing on the gift given to us by our Heavenly Father—the birth of Christ—we have turned much of the celebration toward a jolly figure distributing trivial gifts.

Is it any wonder that many children grow up knowing very little about the actual meaning behind these events until they are eight or nine years old? When the focus is shifted away from the biblical message, the result should not surprise us.

Likewise, instead of the solemn reflection that should mark Holy Week, we often see chocolate rabbits, pastel chicks, baskets of candy, and egg hunts. What exactly does that teach children about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

Give me a break.

The reality is that the KJV contains a number of translation choices that have shaped how people read certain passages, and Acts 12:4 is one of the clearest examples. Yet despite issues like this, many still elevate the KJV as though it alone perfectly represents the original message.

I have several other examples that illustrate where meanings have been altered or obscured, but I’ll save those for later. I’m waiting for my real estate agent to arrive so we can go over some paperwork.

But I will be back to continue this discussion. You can count on it.

Umm … the KJV was written in Shakespearean English (1611 and a bit archaic even then) not in modern (21st Century) English, so we are obligated to accept the meaning of words at the time of publication.

• [A personal favorite of mine: a “charger” in 1611 was a large platter, while it is now a type of fast horse … the KJV says that “the head of John the Baptist was presented on a charger” … which made perfect sense under 1611 English but creates a mental image involving a horse that makes me snicker. It is not WRONG, the word has just drifted in meaning in 400 years.]

Easter is a word that had the meaning of “Passover” in 1611. Using “Easter” in the KJV to be read in public to the common Anglican congregants that had little knowledge of Jewish Holidays (1611 not being a time known for “understanding” of the Semitic community) provided the listeners with a clearer understanding of exactly WHEN in the calendar year these events occurred. It is the same as when we read the Bible and the references to the “second day of the fourth month” of the Jewish calendar have no meaning for us because the Jewish “Fourth month” is nothing like our “April”.

Most of the “Easter bashing” is nonsensical and false. All of it is OFF-TOPIC to a discussion on the KJV. Now, I am not a personal fan of the KJV, but that is only a personal preference for Modern English over Shakespearean English. I admire the things that KJV does better (like communication 3rd person pronouns better) even as I lean towards NASB as my version of choice.

 

[brightfame52]

Alright.

Then when God give us faith that counts as a work opf God but then when we receive that faith we are working. A double works that you cannot escape

You sound confounded

 

[JesusFan]

You know... I really would like to talk more in depth with you about this but there are some points to make before we get to deep.

Explain to me why Jesus was crucified during Passover week, yet the KJV says that Herod intended to keep Peter until after Easter.

The Greek text reads:

ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ.

Meta to pascha literally means “after Passover.”

So if the argument is going to be that Pascha is used for “Easter” in most languages, that still does not solve the problem. In fact, English and German are the unusual ones here. Most languages use a word derived from Pesach (Hebrew) or Pascha (Greek), meaning Passover. English (“Easter”) and German (“Ostern”) are the odd exceptions.

More importantly, during the very week Jesus was crucified there was no scheduled Easter celebration. That observance did not exist at that time.

Nor should it surprise anyone that what many now call “Easter” has accumulated traditions—bunnies, eggs, and other customs—that have nothing to do with the biblical Passover or the events surrounding the crucifixion.

Human traditions have layered extra meaning and symbolism onto holidays that were originally meant to remember the work of our Savior.

We see something similar at Christmas. The name itself comes from “Christ Mass.” Yet instead of focusing on the gift given to us by our Heavenly Father—the birth of Christ—we have turned much of the celebration toward a jolly figure distributing trivial gifts.

Is it any wonder that many children grow up knowing very little about the actual meaning behind these events until they are eight or nine years old? When the focus is shifted away from the biblical message, the result should not surprise us.

Likewise, instead of the solemn reflection that should mark Holy Week, we often see chocolate rabbits, pastel chicks, baskets of candy, and egg hunts. What exactly does that teach children about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

Give me a break.

The reality is that the KJV contains a number of translation choices that have shaped how people read certain passages, and Acts 12:4 is one of the clearest examples. Yet despite issues like this, many still elevate the KJV as though it alone perfectly represents the original message.

I have several other examples that illustrate where meanings have been altered or obscured, but I’ll save those for later. I’m waiting for my real estate agent to arrive so we can go over some paperwork.

But I will be back to continue this discussion. You can count on it.

I am NOT Kjvo, as my preferred translations are Esv/Nas, and also like to use the Greek critical text for studies
And 1611 translators should have just used Passover, not Easter

 

[JesusFan]

Umm … the KJV was written in Shakespearean English (1611 and a bit archaic even then) not in modern (21st Century) English, so we are obligated to accept the meaning of words at the time of publication.

• [A personal favorite of mine: a “charger” in 1611 was a large platter, while it is now a type of fast horse … the KJV says that “the head of John the Baptist was presented on a charger” … which made perfect sense under 1611 English but creates a mental image involving a horse that makes me snicker. It is not WRONG, the word has just drifted in meaning in 400 years.]

Easter is a word that had the meaning of “Passover” in 1611. Using “Easter” in the KJV to be read in public to the common Anglican congregants that had little knowledge of Jewish Holidays (1611 not being a time known for “understanding” of the Semitic community) provided the listeners with a clearer understanding of exactly WHEN in the calendar year these events occurred. It is the same as when we read the Bible and the references to the “second day of the fourth month” of the Jewish calendar have no meaning for us because the Jewish “Fourth month” is nothing like our “April”.

Most of the “Easter bashing” is nonsensical and false. All of it is OFF-TOPIC to a discussion on the KJV. Now, I am not a personal fan of the KJV, but that is only a personal preference for Modern English over Shakespearean English. I admire the things that KJV does better (like communication 3rd person pronouns better) even as I lean towards NASB as my version of choice.

About the Only thing that the Kjv does better would be indeed be identifying personal pronouns for plural or singular usage

 

[atpollard]

About the Only thing that the Kjv does better would be indeed be identifying personal pronouns for plural or singular usage

Actually, it was created with a cadence and clarity of enunciation that makes it superior for being read out loud from a pulpit. That was one of the translation goals … “how does it sound when read before an audience?” Many translations are crafted to be READ silently, and are more difficult to follow when listening to someone reading the word out loud.

I still prefer the newer manuscripts of 20th century translations and the more contemporary English, but one can acknowledge what the KJV excels at. This better cadence is often seen in the Psalms (where KJV is better than a more “literal” translation in capturing the “mood”.)