Scott Shahan
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have the older translation of the bondage of the will, and I see that J.I. Packard has a intro in the newer version what is the difference between the two? Should I get the newer version?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
J.I. Packer"What is the good of giving ... a stiff and strict rendering, when the reader can make nothing of it?" asked Luther. He was speaking specifically of translating the Bible, but the principle applies equally to all translation work. This edition of Luther's own magnum opus, De Servo Arbitrio (literally, On the Enslaved Will) was originally to have been a revision of Henry Cole's translation of 1823, reprinted in a slightly revised form by Henry Atherton in 1931. It became evident, however, that the tortuous, 'stiff and strict' style of this translation so obscured the meaning and force of the original that it was better to attempt a completely new translation, which might more adequately convey to modern readers the impetuous flow and dialectical strength of Luther's powerful Latin. Such a translation we have accordingly sought to produce.
Originally posted by Scott Shahan
I have the older translation of the bondage of the will, and I see that J.I. Packard has a intro in the newer version what is the difference between the two? Should I get the newer version?
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Packer's essay alone is worth the price of the book several times over.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Packer's essay alone is worth the price of the book several times over.
Originally posted by srhoades
It still suprises me that Packer, who is so sound in his theology, was a hard supporter of the ECT document. Although he did later recant.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by srhoades
It still suprises me that Packer, who is so sound in his theology, was a hard supporter of the ECT document. Although he did later recant.
Recanted? Really? I know that he has defended ECT as recently an article he published in March 2005 called "Evangelicals & Catholics -- A State of Play" (he refers to a "project called Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), a pie in which I am privileged to have a finger.")
If he can recanted since, that would be good news. Can you point me to any references on this?