Using brackets in quotes from the Bible

[Arthur81]

I have come to using the NRSVue quite often, though at times I disagree or prefer the Marginal Note over the main translation. Is it okay to do the following:

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, [brethren] beloved by the Lord, because God chose you [from the beginning] for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I've been accustomed to just switch translations when I believe one is more accurate than another, but maybe that seems like 'cherry picking' translations to fit doctrine. By using brackets, I am forced to explain why I chose a particular rendering and put it into brackets. I do have what I believe are solid reasons for my modification of the translation if asked.

 

[lforrest]

I have come to using the NRSVue quite often, though at times I disagree or prefer the Marginal Note over the main translation. Is it okay to do the following:

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, [brethren] beloved by the Lord, because God chose you [from the beginning] for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I've been accustomed to just switch translations when I believe one is more accurate than another, but maybe that seems like 'cherry picking' translations to fit doctrine. By using brackets, I am forced to explain why I chose a particular rendering and put it into brackets. I do have what I believe are solid reasons for my modification of the translation if asked.

While scripture is inspired the same can not be said confidently regarding translation efforts. Some translations have been impacted by bias.

I see no problem with modifying a translation using brackets, though there is risk of inserting your own docturnal bias. Try your best not to let established doctrine influence your translation. Particularly with Revelation, perhaps it is best to leave that book unmodified lest you are wrong and someone else reads it.

So long as your new translation is for personal use.

 

[Arthur81]

While scripture is inspired the same can not be said confidently regarding translation efforts. Some translations have been impacted by bias.

I see no problem with modifying a translation using brackets, though there is risk of inserting your own docturnal bias. Try your best not to let established doctrine influence your translation. Particularly with Revelation, perhaps it is best to leave that book unmodified lest you are wrong and someone else reads it.

What do you mean by "unmodified"? Do you see a problem with the translation difference in the following?

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 KJV)

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. (Rev 13:8 RSV)

I have a contextual, or reasonable reason for choosing the RSV over the KJV on this verse, though I use the KJV in my studies.

 

[Arthur81]

What do you mean by "unmodified"? Do you see a problem with the translation difference in the following?

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 KJV)

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. (Rev 13:8 RSV)

I have a contextual, or reasonable reason for choosing the RSV over the KJV on this verse, though I use the KJV in my studies.

We are going through Revelation in our home studies now. The closest commentary to the explicit statements of Revelation I find in the commentary by D. S. Clark... we are reading it from:

The message from Patmos .. : Clark, David Scott, 1859-1939 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

148 p. ; 20 cm

archive.org

 

[lforrest]

What do you mean by "unmodified"? Do you see a problem with the translation difference in the following?

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 KJV)

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. (Rev 13:8 RSV)

I have a contextual, or reasonable reason for choosing the RSV over the KJV on this verse, though I use the KJV in my studies.

Just concerned over the warning at the end of revelation. Though if someone else modified Revelation improperly and you quote then, that's another matter.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have come to using the NRSVue quite often, though at times I disagree or prefer the Marginal Note over the main translation. Is it okay to do the following:

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, [brethren] beloved by the Lord, because God chose you [from the beginning] for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I've been accustomed to just switch translations when I believe one is more accurate than another, but maybe that seems like 'cherry picking' translations to fit doctrine. By using brackets, I am forced to explain why I chose a particular rendering and put it into brackets. I do have what I believe are solid reasons for my modification of the translation if asked.

Brackets generally are for adding something not found in the originals and added by the translators. Once again while many are accurate, the more modern the translation (literal and not dynamic) the more it can be prone to subjective bias and not objective analysis of the verse and related passages.

 

[Arthur81]

Brackets generally are for adding something not found in the originals and added by the translators. Once again while many are accurate, the more modern the translation (literal and not dynamic) the more it can be prone to subjective bias and not objective analysis of the verse and related passages.

Ron, let me explain my approach to the translations. For the most accurate, word for word translation, with the least bias, the RV and ASV are my choice and I actually prefer the translation "LORD" in the RV, over "Jehovah" in the ASV. I'm not sure how certain "Yahweh" is as to the correct name of God. When it comes to qualifications and scholarship of the translators, I still believe the men who translated the KJV are unsurpassed, with the manuscripts they had available, and I do not find any important doctrine affected by variations in those manuscripts.

Modern translations do have their biases or approach. I avoid quoting the ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc., because of their modern conservative, fundamentalist bias. I use the RSV, NRSV and NRSV Update Edition because of its neutral, academic approach to the text. It is by the best in modern scholarship, but I also know they are not translated from the viewpoint of Christian doctrine. This means I do choose marginal notes more often, especially in the OT prophetic verses. While I use the Oxford Study Bibles, I definitely would not recommend a new Christian use them!

When it comes to a modern Dynamic Equivalence Translation, the Revised English Bible, a 1989 UK translation is by far my favorite. I usually agree with how they translate many verses, and no doubt many would say I am choosing because of my doctrinal stance, but I have my textual reason to accept their translation.

I see no other way to translate the following if we are giving the meaning:

"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)

"All who take this principle for their guide, peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God!" (Gal 6:16 REB)

I know I hold a view held by very few on this forum. :)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Modern translations do have their biases or approach. I avoid quoting the ESV, NASB, NKJV, etc., because of their modern conservative, fundamentalist bias. I use the RSV, NRSV and NRSV Update Edition because of its neutral, academic approach to the text. It is by the best in modern scholarship, but I also know they are not translated from the viewpoint of Christian doctrine. This means I do choose marginal notes more often, especially in the OT prophetic verses. While I use the Oxford Study Bibles, I definitely would not recommend a new Christian use them!

When it comes to a modern Dynamic Equivalence Translation, the Revised English Bible, a 1989 UK translation is by far my favorite. I usually agree with how they translate many verses, and no doubt many would say I am choosing because of my doctrinal stance, but I have my textual reason to accept their translation.

I see no other way to translate the following if we are giving the meaning:

"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)

"All who take this principle for their guide, peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God!" (Gal 6:16 REB)

I know I hold a view held by very few on this forum. :)

you may know that Westcott and Hort created their own manuscripts to translate from and they are far from teh best Greek Scholars to make their own Greek manu script.

Dynamic Equivalences are dubious at best. They are better than paraphrases, but not by much.

And how you quoted Gal. 6:16 is woefully inaccurate. the conjunction "Kai" (and) is found between them, and the Israel of God, which shows that Paul was speaking about 2 groups of believers. That is supported by nearly every Greek Manuscript

 

[Arthur81]

you may know that Westcott and Hort created their own manuscripts to translate from and they are far from teh best Greek Scholars to make their own Greek manu script.

Dynamic Equivalences are dubious at best. They are better than paraphrases, but not by much.

And how you quoted Gal. 6:16 is woefully inaccurate. the conjunction "Kai" (and) is found between them, and the Israel of God, which shows that Paul was speaking about 2 groups of believers. That is supported by nearly every Greek Manuscript

I'm no scholar on Textual Criticism, nor do I care about the arguments on the WH, or the TR versus the NA28. I examine the arguments made by the scholars on various readings. For example, I have Bruce M. Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed. 1994. I can read his argument on 2 Thess. 2:13 supporting the translation "firstfruits", and I then can compare with the argument made in the Net2.1 Bible which reads:

Critical Text Note:
"tc ‡ Several MSS (B F G P 0278 33 81 323 1505 1739 1881 al bo) read ἀπαρχήν (aparchēn, “as a firstfruit”; i.e., as the first converts) instead of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς (ap’ archēs, “from the beginning,” found in א D K L Ψ 1175 1241 M it sa), but this seems more likely to be a change by scribes who thought of the early churches in general in this way. But Paul would not be likely to call the Thessalonians “the firstfruits” among his converts. Further, ἀπαρχή (aparchē, “firstfruit”) is a well-worn term in Paul’s letters (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 15:20, 23; 16:15), while ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς occurs nowhere else in Paul. Scribes might be expected to change the text to the more familiar term. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult (see arguments for ἀπαρχήν in TCGNT 568), and ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς must be preferred only slightly."

I also check my Bible software entry on this:
Thessalonians 2:13:
TEXT: "God picked plyou as firstfruits for salvation"
EVIDENCE: B F G P 33 81 1739 1881 some lat vg syr(h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "God picked plyou from the beginning for salvation"
EVIDENCE: S D K L Psi 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect some lat syr(p) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEVn
COMMENTS: There is only one letter's difference between "as firstfruits" and "from the beginning." The UBS Textual Committee preferred "firstfruits" because the prepositional phrase "from the beginning" is not used elsewhere by Paul while he uses the word "firstfruits" six other times, and in two of those places some copyists have changed "firstfruits" to "from the beginning."

Every translation is a mix of Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. Interpretation must be involved in any translation. On that question, Daniel B. Wallace has a good article online, 15 Myths about Bible translations -

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…

danielbwallace.com

About Gal. 6:16, looking at the RSV,
"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:14-16 RSV)

The Net2.1 Text note reads:
"tn The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”

Taken in the full context, I believe (2) is the correct meaning and translation. This is the opinion of John Wesley, Matthew Poole, John Gill, Matthew Henry, etc. The Cambridge Bible comment reads as follows, summing up the best argument:

"It seems better, however, to regard the expression as intended to sum up the ‘as many as’ in a phrase which is closely identified with the whole argument of the Epistle, ‘If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise’. These are ‘the Israel of God’, whether Jews or Gentiles, for ‘the Jew is he who is one inwardly in the spirit, not in the letter’. Rom_2:29. So that the blessing is invoked on all who walk according to the rule enunciated, and so in fact on the true Israel, not Israel after the flesh, but the Israel of the promise and of God."

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm no scholar on Textual Criticism, nor do I care about the arguments on the WH, or the TR versus the NA28. I examine the arguments made by the scholars on various readings. For example, I have Bruce M. Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed. 1994. I can read his argument on 2 Thess. 2:13 supporting the translation "firstfruits", and I then can compare with the argument made in the Net2.1 Bible which reads:

Critical Text Note:
"tc ‡ Several MSS (B F G P 0278 33 81 323 1505 1739 1881 al bo) read ἀπαρχήν (aparchēn, “as a firstfruit”; i.e., as the first converts) instead of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς (ap’ archēs, “from the beginning,” found in א D K L Ψ 1175 1241 M it sa), but this seems more likely to be a change by scribes who thought of the early churches in general in this way. But Paul would not be likely to call the Thessalonians “the firstfruits” among his converts. Further, ἀπαρχή (aparchē, “firstfruit”) is a well-worn term in Paul’s letters (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 15:20, 23; 16:15), while ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς occurs nowhere else in Paul. Scribes might be expected to change the text to the more familiar term. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult (see arguments for ἀπαρχήν in TCGNT 568), and ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς must be preferred only slightly."

I also check my Bible software entry on this:
Thessalonians 2:13:
TEXT: "God picked plyou as firstfruits for salvation"
EVIDENCE: B F G P 33 81 1739 1881 some lat vg syr(h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "God picked plyou from the beginning for salvation"
EVIDENCE: S D K L Psi 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect some lat syr(p) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEVn
COMMENTS: There is only one letter's difference between "as firstfruits" and "from the beginning." The UBS Textual Committee preferred "firstfruits" because the prepositional phrase "from the beginning" is not used elsewhere by Paul while he uses the word "firstfruits" six other times, and in two of those places some copyists have changed "firstfruits" to "from the beginning."

Every translation is a mix of Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. Interpretation must be involved in any translation. On that question, Daniel B. Wallace has a good article online, 15 Myths about Bible translations -

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…

danielbwallace.com

About Gal. 6:16, looking at the RSV,
"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:14-16 RSV)

The Net2.1 Text note reads:
"tn The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”

Taken in the full context, I believe (2) is the correct meaning and translation. This is the opinion of John Wesley, Matthew Poole, John Gill, Matthew Henry, etc. The Cambridge Bible comment reads as follows, summing up the best argument:

"It seems better, however, to regard the expression as intended to sum up the ‘as many as’ in a phrase which is closely identified with the whole argument of the Epistle, ‘If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise’. These are ‘the Israel of God’, whether Jews or Gentiles, for ‘the Jew is he who is one inwardly in the spirit, not in the letter’. Rom_2:29. So that the blessing is invoked on all who walk according to the rule enunciated, and so in fact on the true Israel, not Israel after the flesh, but the Israel of the promise and of God."

Just as a matter of trivia….brackets and quotation marks…. personal clarification and accurate quotes.

The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language that has come from somebody else. (either spoken or written)

For example…
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

It can be said that this is a quote from the New American Standard Bible translation…..but not a quote from the actual scriptures.

Ever compare the Spanish to the English on the back of a shampoo bottle….the words are not in the same order in the sentence. The same with the Greek, the grammar and sentence structure are different than the English.

This is how it is worded in the scriptures….
Thus for loved – God the world that the Son the only begotten he gave so that everyone – believing in Him not should parish but should have life eternal.

Say thank you to the translators this would give you a headache reading the scriptures in this format.

 

[Arthur81]

Just as a matter of trivia….brackets and quotation marks…. personal clarification and accurate quotes.

The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language that has come from somebody else. (either spoken or written)

For example…
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

It can be said that this is a quote from the New American Standard Bible translation…..but not a quote from the actual scriptures.

Ever compare the Spanish to the English on the back of a shampoo bottle….the words are not in the same order in the sentence. The same with the Greek, the grammar and sentence structure are different than the English.

This is how it is worded in the scriptures….
Thus for loved – God the world that the Son the only begotten he gave so that everyone – believing in Him not should parish but should have life eternal.

Say thank you to the translators this would give you a headache reading the scriptures in this format.

Those who have regular contact with someone from another culture and language today, see this problem. How often have you heard something similar to: "I can't think of a way to say that in English", so a broad description is given, a paraphrase. Imagine adding the gap of 2000 years to the equation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm no scholar on Textual Criticism, nor do I care about the arguments on the WH, or the TR versus the NA28. I examine the arguments made by the scholars on various readings. For example, I have Bruce M. Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed. 1994. I can read his argument on 2 Thess. 2:13 supporting the translation "firstfruits", and I then can compare with the argument made in the Net2.1 Bible which reads:

Critical Text Note:
"tc ‡ Several MSS (B F G P 0278 33 81 323 1505 1739 1881 al bo) read ἀπαρχήν (aparchēn, “as a firstfruit”; i.e., as the first converts) instead of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς (ap’ archēs, “from the beginning,” found in א D K L Ψ 1175 1241 M it sa), but this seems more likely to be a change by scribes who thought of the early churches in general in this way. But Paul would not be likely to call the Thessalonians “the firstfruits” among his converts. Further, ἀπαρχή (aparchē, “firstfruit”) is a well-worn term in Paul’s letters (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 15:20, 23; 16:15), while ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς occurs nowhere else in Paul. Scribes might be expected to change the text to the more familiar term. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult (see arguments for ἀπαρχήν in TCGNT 568), and ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς must be preferred only slightly."

I also check my Bible software entry on this:
Thessalonians 2:13:
TEXT: "God picked plyou as firstfruits for salvation"
EVIDENCE: B F G P 33 81 1739 1881 some lat vg syr(h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "God picked plyou from the beginning for salvation"
EVIDENCE: S D K L Psi 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect some lat syr(p) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEVn
COMMENTS: There is only one letter's difference between "as firstfruits" and "from the beginning." The UBS Textual Committee preferred "firstfruits" because the prepositional phrase "from the beginning" is not used elsewhere by Paul while he uses the word "firstfruits" six other times, and in two of those places some copyists have changed "firstfruits" to "from the beginning."

Every translation is a mix of Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. Interpretation must be involved in any translation. On that question, Daniel B. Wallace has a good article online, 15 Myths about Bible translations -

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…

danielbwallace.com

About Gal. 6:16, looking at the RSV,
"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:14-16 RSV)

The Net2.1 Text note reads:
"tn The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”

Taken in the full context, I believe (2) is the correct meaning and translation. This is the opinion of John Wesley, Matthew Poole, John Gill, Matthew Henry, etc. The Cambridge Bible comment reads as follows, summing up the best argument:

"It seems better, however, to regard the expression as intended to sum up the ‘as many as’ in a phrase which is closely identified with the whole argument of the Epistle, ‘If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise’. These are ‘the Israel of God’, whether Jews or Gentiles, for ‘the Jew is he who is one inwardly in the spirit, not in the letter’. Rom_2:29. So that the blessing is invoked on all who walk according to the rule enunciated, and so in fact on the true Israel, not Israel after the flesh, but the Israel of the promise and of God."

Well we could argue authorities opinions until Jesus returns. But knowing the whole corpus of Puals writings and the in Galatinas "even or that is" is a very aberrant translation in light of all Pauls writings on Israel as a people and belieivng Israel and the whole book of Galatians itself.

 

[Arthur81]

Since Gal. 6:16 was touched upon, consider the following presentation of Rom. 11:17-27:

"But if some of the branches(Physical Jews) were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot(Elect Gentiles), were grafted in their place to share the rich root(Jesus the Christ) of the olive tree(God's people), do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root(Christ), but the root(Christ) that supports you. You will say, “Branches(Physical Jews) were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches(physical Jews), perhaps he will not spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And even those of Israel(Physical Jews), if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree(Gentiles) and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree(God's people), how much more will these natural branches(Elect Jews) be grafted back into their own olive tree(God's people). So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel(Physical Jews), until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel(elect Jews & elect Gentiles) will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.” “And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” (Rom 11:17-27, NRSV)

Taking the phrasing from vs25 &26 -
"hardening has come upon part of Israel(Physical Jews), until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel(elect Jews & elect Gentiles) will be saved"

Historically many, if not most, believed this is referring to a mass conversion toward the end of time, as if the beginning of v26 began "And then all Israel..." But the Greek translated "so" here is -

houto and the classic 1890 Strongs defines this word as meaning "in this way (referring to what precedes or follows)"

Since preceding this is the phrase "a hardening has come upon part of Israel(Physical Jews)", in the 1st century, therefore I understand the passage to teach that the non-elect physical Jews were hardened, but the elect Jews were believing all down through Christian history, and in this way "all Israel(elect Jews & elect Gentiles) will be saved".

I do know that historically, those who believed there was a mass conversion of Jews at the close of the age, they saw it as Jews being converted, saved, and brought into the church, the body of Christ, God's New Covenant Israel or people of God. There is nothing in this passage that hints of a return to the promised land, or of a rebuilt temple and reinstitution of the Old Covenant. I see this idea that there was to be a 3rd temple, and sacrifices offered again, to border on blasphemy, a demeaning of the finished work of Christ.

I suspect I am giving a minority view of this on this Forum. :)

 

[ScottA]

I have come to using the NRSVue quite often, though at times I disagree or prefer the Marginal Note over the main translation. Is it okay to do the following:

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, [brethren] beloved by the Lord, because God chose you [from the beginning] for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

2Th 2:13 NRSVue But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I've been accustomed to just switch translations when I believe one is more accurate than another, but maybe that seems like 'cherry picking' translations to fit doctrine. By using brackets, I am forced to explain why I chose a particular rendering and put it into brackets. I do have what I believe are solid reasons for my modification of the translation if asked.

In the above example you have done well, as the Lord has referred to "brethren" as opposed to "brothers and sisters" for a reason...and our current political correctness only obscures it.

The reason, is the same as lineages in the scriptures being primarily male. Which He has done to distinguish between those things of God (male/Groom), differently than those things of mankind (female/Bride).

Thus, reading the passage as He intended, the message specifically refers to those chosen or born of God. The "thanks to God" then, is for having been chosen.