John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
Nor does your interpretation of Scripture alter its text. That is my point. You and I can both make mistakes in interpretation because we are human. That is why I prefer the literal method ("literal" being according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context) rather than liberal hermenutics.Your lack of biblical understanding does not alter the passage at all.
from precept austin;
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (NASB: Lockman)
Greek: hoti ous proegno, (3SAAI) kai proorisen (3SAAI) summorphous tes eikonos tou huiou autou, eis to einai (PAN) auton prototokon en pollois adelphois
Amplified: For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was aware and loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
NLT: For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn, with many brothers and sisters. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: God, in his foreknowledge, chose them to bear the family likeness of his Son, that he might be the eldest of a family of many brothers. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: Because, those whom He foreordained He also marked out beforehand as those who were to be conformed to the derived image of His Son, with the result that He is firstborn among many brethren.
Young's Literal: For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;
Suppose you or I (or W.R. Dowining) are less than absolutely perfect in our understanding of God. If I employ your liberal method to hermenutics and ascribe to a word a "biblical meaning" then I would introduce error into the text via this "double speak". This is exactly what the liberal theologians did decades ago in the SBC. The difference, of course, is that you do not hold a liberal view of Scripture or ascribe to liberal theology. You just have adopted liberal hermenutics (I believe to guard against liberal theology, which is commendable, but the liberty taken with the text of Scripture is just as problematic).
Last edited: