Hello Darren
You wrote : I'm really not interested in what is implied contextually…..
For me that comment puts you onto pretty thin ice allegorically speaking. Consider what you may be waving aside …..
From LOF part 8
A TRANSLATION ILLUSTRATION
My wife Manuela, is German. I asked her if they have a saying in Germany that is the same as one that I gave to her in English. She said, "Yes, but we don’t say it that way." Well, I asked her how they do say it, and she replied:
"WAS DU NICHT WEISST
MACH DICH NICHT HEISS"
Okay. What is that in English? First she informed me the Germans choose these specific words to express this old colloquial saying, because it rhymes so nicely. Here is an exact word for word translation into English:
"WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW
MAKES YOU NOT HOT"
That’s a word for word translation, but as you can plainly hear, in English the rhyme is gone. And we don’t normally speak that way in English either, so the second line of word order must be changed:
"WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW
DOESN’T MAKE YOU HOT"
Now we might contend that this is an accurate translation, but certainly not a good translation. A few of you might not as yet even know what the English counterpart of this saying is. And that is because translating also involves INTERPRETING.
We do, in deed, have a similar saying in America, to this saying in Germany. But in the American version, many would not understand it unless we change a word or two. Now we do have a similar saying in America with the same general thought and wording, and so we would properly translate this old Germany saying as follows:
"WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW
WON’T HURT YOU"
It sounds just as strange to Germans when they hear our version: "won’t hurt you" as it sounds strange to us when we hear "doesn’t make you hot." Actually the German version of this colloquial saying is more precise to the truth than is our American version. There are many things that you might not know or be aware of that can hurt you. One could have cancer and not know it, but it sure could be hurtful to your body. But in Germany they are more precise in that what one doesn’t know doesn’t make one "hot." Or as we might say in English: "hot under the collar." Or make us flush or blush by raising our blood pressure. The emotional reaction of getting "hot" comes from knowing something, not from not knowing something.
Anyway, I hope that everyone reading this paper can see, from this simple example, that a perfect error-free translation of Hebrew and Greek into English is NOT POSSIBLE! There will always be minor or major changes in the interpretation when translating. This is one reason why Peter tells us that no Scripture is its OWN INTERPRETATION. We must compare Scripture with Scripture. Likewise, we must have TWO witnesses of Scripture before a binding truth is established.
Unquote
Then you wrote your reason for not being interested in implications that are presented contextually is because : as any word added or subtracted to help is still a word added or taken away. God forbade this.
Relative v/s Absolute
Ecc 3 : 14 I know that whatever God does, it endures forever; nothing can be added to it nor anything taken from it.
Rev 22 : 18-10 God forbade “Adding to “ or “taking away from” His word.
Understanding context is a skill that I also associate with understanding that the scriptures do not contradict as shown in Ray's teachings on Absolute v/s Relative also detailed in the LOF teachings.
Can you truly say that you believe, suggest, endorse and stand by your opinion that the presence or absence of the word God in Rom 8: is according to your belief and how you see this scripture that according to you the context is not / was not changed by adding or removing the word "God" .
From LOF part 7
IS THE KING JAMES BIBLE INERRANT?
Many feel that the King James Bible is "inerrant" (incapable of error). It is, in fact, a doctrine of some denominations. There have been over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND changes in the King James Bible. Most of them are relatively minor changes such as spelling, grammar, etc. Nonetheless, I think all should agree that any translation requiring a hundred thousand corrections hardly could be called perfect and inerrant. In the front of my 1611 Edition of the King James there is an eleven-page dissertation entitled: "THE TRANSLATORS To The Reader." And in it the translators freely confess their inability to translate the Scriptures flawlessly.
This 1611 KJV also has notes in the margins. Unfortunately, these have all been removed from most modern printings. Hundreds of times you will find in the margin, notes stating what the Hebrew or Greek literally said even though they saw fit to translate it otherwise. I am not criticizing this practice. Often it is necessary because it is not possible to translate word for word and have it make sense in English. Most of the corrections made over the centuries have been positive, however, there still remains a few major errors the desperately need correction. Example: the words "hell" and "eternal" have no equivalent in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts! (Read the first ten pages of my Letter to John Hagee on this site).
Do you really represent the belief that the inclusion or the subtraction of the word God in this text has no bearing on the meaning of the text or context. Are you saying that you believe that the meaning is the same whether the written word says that it is THINGS that work together compared to the real translation wherein it is taught that it is NOT THINGS working THINGS out but it is GOD working out THINGS.
From LOF part 8
One more important verse regarding our calling, that I will cite out of the Concordant Literal New Testament because I believe they translate the Greek aorist tense properly, whereas the King James uses the past tense:
"Now we are aware that GOD [it is unfortunate that the King James leaves out "God" even though it is in the manuscripts. Most translations do put "God" in this opening phrase. Things don’t just ‘work’ together without GOD doing the ‘working’] is working all together for the good of those who are loving God, who are [being] called according to the purpose that, whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand, also, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be Firstborn among many brethren. Now whom He designates beforehand, these He calls [not ‘called’ as all are NOT YET called, it is the aorist tense] also, and whom He calls, these He justifies, also; now whom He justifies, these He glorifies also" (Rom. 8:28:30).
Also if you have read all of Ray’s writings, and if you agree with the teachings contained therein, you should have no problem with what is shared for our encouragement, edification and exhortation. Ecc 3 ; 14 says that …. And God does it so that men will reverently fear HIM, revere and worship Him knowing that He is.
As I understand it, the entire book of Ester does not mention the word “God” in the entire text. This is not an omission! This is how it was written. It is an omission to render the word God obsolete in the verse Rom 8: 28. That is an error that e-sword refutes with evidence as brought forward for our edification, encouragement and exhortation.
Arcturus