God didn't think it robbery to be equal to Himself

[Shubee]

The words in red YOUR words, not the scriptures.

That's correct. I'm mocking your misunderstanding of Philippians 2:6.

 

[oldhermit]

The question is why you failed to discern the meaning of the riddle God didn't think it robbery to be equal to Himself and why you still do not discern that the following translations disagree with yours:

New English Bible (NEB)
For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God

New American Standard Bible
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
Who, though existing in the demut of the mode of being of Elohim [His etzem or essential nature], nevertheless Moshiach did not regard being equal with G-d as a thing to be seized,

Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal to God,

The following translations are all correct. They do not disagree with anything I said.

 

[oldhermit]

The following translations are all correct. They do not disagree with anything I said.

Let be amend my last statement. I had to pull up the NEB to take a better look at this text. This is a rather poor rendering of the Greek in verse six. This verse could not be said to be an accurate translation of this verse. It is nothing more than a paraphrase of the text and not even a good paraphrase.

 

[Shubee]

The following translations are all correct. They do not disagree with anything I said.

The problem is that you think these translations say virtually the same thing as the KJV and the NKJV:

New English Bible (NEB)
For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God

New American Standard Bible
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
Who, though existing in the demut of the mode of being of Elohim [His etzem or essential nature], nevertheless Moshiach did not regard being equal with G-d as a thing to be seized,

Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal to God,

King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

New King James Version
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

 

[oldhermit]

The problem is that you think these translations say virtually the same thing as the KJV and the NKJV:

New English Bible (NEB)
For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God

New American Standard Bible
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
Who, though existing in the demut of the mode of being of Elohim [His etzem or essential nature], nevertheless Moshiach did not regard being equal with G-d as a thing to be seized,

Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal to God,

King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

New King James Version
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

The question is not 'what do the translations say' but, 'what does the Greek say?'

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἴναι ἴσα θεῷ,
Literally, "Who in the form of God existing, not something to be plunder considered it to be equal with God."
This is my translation of the Greek as it exists in the Byzantine Majority text. There is absolutely no disagreement between this and the rendering of the NKJV, KJV, YLT, or the NAS. You are trying to argue a point that you do not understand nor have sufficient background in the language to judge which translations are correct or incorrect.

 

[Esanta]

who hos​

,​

living hyparchō​

in en​

​

character morphē​

godly theos​

,​

did hēgeomai​

not ou​

regard hēgeomai​

equality isos​

with​

God theos​

​

to be eimi​

grasped harpagmos​

,​

 

[Esanta]

or alternatively:

who hos​

,​

living hyparchō​

in en​

​

character morphē​

godly theos​

,​

regarded hēgeomai​

not ou​

esteem hēgeomai​

equal isos​

to​

God theos​

​

to be eimi​

grasped harpagmos​

 

[Shubee]

The question is not 'what do the translations say' but, 'what does the Greek say?'

A true Greek scholar would have commented on my quotation from F. F. Bruce. So there's no point in my asking why your translation, which makes no sense, differs so markedly from Young's literal translation.

Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal to God,

 

[Shubee]

who hos​

,​

living hyparchō​

in en​

​

character morphē​

godly theos​

,​

did hēgeomai​

not ou​

regard hēgeomai​

equality isos​

with​

God theos​

​

to be eimi​

grasped harpagmos
​

,​

Yes, thank you. That is a much more reasonable translation than the old hermit offered.

 

[oldhermit]

who hos Good
​

​

living hyparchō - OK but the idea of ὑπάρχων as a verb of being more defines one's ontology.
​

in en Good
​

​

character morphē - This is ok but μορφῇ means more than just one's character. It speaks of ones intrinsic form or nature.
character godly theos - No, godly is εὐσεβῶς. The word here is Θεοῦ - of God.
​

,​

did hēgeomai - Good
​

not ou - Good
​

regard hēgeomai - Good
​

equality isos - Good
​

with God theos - Actually, God here is in the dative spelling - Θεῷ
​

to be eimi - Good
​

grasped harpagmos - Good
​

 

[oldhermit]

A true Greek scholar would have commented on my quotation from F. F. Bruce. So there's no point in my asking why your translation, which makes no sense, differs so markedly from Young's literal translation.

Young's Literal Translation
who, being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal to God,

First of all, I do not pretend to be a scholar but, Like I said. You are trying to argue a point that you do not understand nor have sufficient background in the language to judge which translations are correct or incorrect.

 

[Esanta]

First of all, I do not pretend to be a scholar but, Like I said. You are trying to argue a point that you do not understand nor have sufficient background in the language to judge which translations are correct or incorrect.

You just admitted you're not a scholar. So how could you possibly know that?

 

[oldhermit]

You just admitted you're not a scholar. So how could you possibly know that?

I do have a background in New Testament Greek but I am by no means a scholar.

 

[oldhermit]

First of all, I do not pretend to be a scholar but, Like I said. You are trying to argue a point that you do not understand nor have sufficient background in the language to judge which translations are correct or incorrect.

Bruce is absolutely correct but, you are misrepresenting Bruce's argument. Since Jesus already existed in the form of God, he did not regard his equality with God as a seizure.

 

[Esanta]

who hos Good
​

​

living hyparchō - OK but the idea of ὑπάρχων as a verb of being more defines one's ontology.
​

in en Good
​

​

character morphē - This is ok but μορφῇ means more than just one's character. It speaks of ones intrinsic form or nature.
character godly theos - No, godly is εὐσεβῶς. The word here is Θεοῦ - of God.
​

,​

did hēgeomai - Good
​

not ou - Good
​

regard hēgeomai - Good
​

equality isos - Good
​

with God theos - Actually, God here is in the dative spelling - Θεῷ
​

to be eimi - Good
​

grasped harpagmos - Good
​

So, to summarize what you think is viable:

who hos
​

​

living hyparchō -
​

in en
​

​

nature morphē
of God theos
​

,​

did hēgeomai
​

not ou
​

regard hēgeomai
​

equality isos
​

to God theos
​

to be eimi
​

grasped harpagmos​

 

[oldhermit]

So, to summarize what you think is viable:

who hos
​

​

living hyparchō -
​

in en
​

​

nature morphē
godly theos
​

,​

did hēgeomai
​

not ou
​

regard hēgeomai
​

equality isos
​

to God theos
​

to be eimi
​

grasped harpagmos​

I do not understand your question.

 

[Esanta]

Bruce is absolutely correct but, you are misrepresenting Bruce's argument. Since Jesus already existed in the form of God, he did not regard his equality with God as a seizure.

I think that's reaching. Not every Christian even believes Jesus was God. Many don't, with fair reason to.

 

[oldhermit]

I think that's reaching. Not every Christian even believes Jesus was God. Many don't, with fair reason to.

One cannot be a Christian and deny the deity of Jesus. As for Mary, why do you not think she believed Jesus is God?

 

[StoneThrower]

The question is not 'what do the translations say' but, 'what does the Greek say?'

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἴναι ἴσα θεῷ,
Literally, "Who in the form of God existing, not something to be plunder considered it to be equal with God."
This is my translation of the Greek as it exists in the Byzantine Majority text. There is absolutely no disagreement between this and the rendering of the NKJV, KJV, YLT, or the NAS. You are trying to argue a point that you do not understand nor have sufficient background in the language to judge which translations are correct or incorrect.

Most folks (not all), that come to forums are not teachable or open to learning, its just not the reason they come here.
They have no formal education, done little to no study, but are self proffesed subject matter experts.

This battle is not against flesh and blood....

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, thank you. That is a much more reasonable translation than the old hermit offered.

This is not an issue of what is "reasonable", but what is grammatically and linguistically correct.