Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
The teacher alleges modern textual decisions in Romans 5:1 were driven by theology (“overwhelming evidence” for “let us,” but translators choose “we have” because “it doesn’t make sense”); what does this accusation imply about how God has preserved Scripture, and what safeguards should a serious Christian use when a translation choice conveniently supports a popular doctrine?
Another way to ask: If translators chose “we have peace” because it fits their theology, what does that suggest about how God has protected Scripture, and what should you do when a translation choice seems to support a popular belief too neatly?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker implies God preserved Scripture through many manuscripts and early witnesses, but that human translators and scholars can still bias decisions for theological comfort; therefore, Christians should compare evidence, consult notes and older witnesses, and not build doctrine on a convenient rendering.
- He says evidence favors the exhortation: “overwhelming… most ancient manuscripts… early translations… early Christian writers… all say, ‘Let us have peace.’”
- He argues modern editors admit the evidence but choose differently: “overwhelming the evidence is… but it doesn’t make sense… so we’re going to go with ‘We have peace.’”
- He emphasizes manuscript reality: “No two… manuscripts read precisely alike… we can’t be 100% certain… God’s choice… He used earthen vessels.”
- He warns of “theological games” by scholars and says their bias is “their theology… once saved, always saved.”
- He models a safeguard by appealing to multiple lines: Greek spelling issue (omega/omicron), early writers (Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom), and early translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.).