Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Read my earlier post. It will answer your question.
Simple question for you, yes or no.
Not my question.
Are you claiming Luther did not add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28?
Please do not make this personal.
“Did Luther issue a German translation adding that word, or not?”
In Dr. E’s answer, I recognize she broke the rule in using words with more than two syllables. In fact she used some quoted words with three syllables and even some German words.
“In fact, the Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.” —
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.”
So, as not to force one to read her research or to have to think it through, the answer in one syllable is, she said, yes.
I think you need to review what “personal” means.
HALLELUJAH AND PRAISE GOD FOR THAT! AMEN!
INDEED! VERY WELL PUT.
Thanks for the voice of sanity yet again.
I’m not about to presume to read my exhorter’s mind.
Some seem to evidence more of a
capacity
and
more of a willingness to grow up
than others.
Of course, as a reformed Christian, I believe there are no coincidences. 8~)
This kind of thing might end
when more RC’s
wake up and realize that their perspective is not the only one in town . . . not the only
—”RIGHTEOUS” one . . . using the term very loosely
—not the only ‘authoritative’ one . . . using the term very loosely . . .
—certainly not the only “Biblical” one . . . using the term extremely loosely . . .
—certainly not the only ‘reasonable’ one . . . using the term extremely loosely . . .
—certainly not the only ‘historically accurate’ term . . . using the term laughably loosely . . .
—certainly not the only Christian one . . .
—Certainly not the only logical one . . . .
. . .
Of course not . . .
In this case, it is hypothetically possible to speculate . . .
that such lack of awareness may be along the lines of . . .
The cause is often not aware of the result.
Any translation adding to the Word of God is in my sight a poison. God has a far worse judgment, but such is not mine to decide.
WOW!
SANITY STRIKES
YET AGAIN!
THANKS TONS AND TONS AND TONS
Much appreciated.
When replying, try making it one sentence long, preferably an inane question, two syllables per word at the most and an epithet for flavor. That seems to be the preferred method of discourse here.Oh, and your answer was from your own research, not opinion, dogma or edict. Do it again and you will be referred to the RM for proper penalty.
As will end a
LOT
of utter
UNBIBLICAL
UNHISTORICAL
UNCHRISTIAN
UTTER RC BALDERDASH.
“No, the truth is that you essentially insulted another Christian with your UFO comment.”
Nope. He has often and even in this thread promoted his odd beliefs. Since he claims HIS is the TRUTH about the True Church his belief are a valid issue for those evaluating his veracity. Telling the truth is not an insult. He claims that UFO’s are real and part of the eschatology of the True Faith. Those are facts.
I love it when Calvinists show evidence of believing in modern Christian miracles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.