I get the impression that only two positions are possible?
That’s kind of a sophomoric assessment, if that’s what’s being said. #2 does NOT follow from #1.
Perhaps someone can elucidate?
I can see that comparing claims in different books by different authors in the Bible may lead to shakey accusations of inconsistencies. But what if one sees inconsistencies, even a contradiction, in the same verse? This appears to be the case with Romans 9:22 as expressed in different Bible versions. For example, note the wording of the verse in these two contrasting versions.
"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" (NASB)
"What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:" (ASV)
Most Bible versions present, in one form or another, the ASV wording, that is, the version that omits the key word although.
The first version says that God does not demonstrate His wrath and make His power known despite willing to do that. Instead He endures with much patience vessels of wrath.
The second version says He does demonstrate His wrath and make His power known, and He does so precisely by enduring with much longsuffering vessels of wrath.
If the opposite sense denoted by these two versions does not stand out to you, consider these two sentences that use although in an analogous way to their use in Romans 9:22.
Although wanting to meditate this afternoon, I went fishing.
Wanting to meditate this afternoon, I went fishing.
The first says I didn’t meditate because I went fishing. The second says the opposite, namely, I did meditate, and I did so by going fishing.
(In both sets of examples, the word although, a subordinating conjunction, is a concessive. It introduces a phrase or clause denoting a circumstance that might be expected to preclude the action of the main clause but does not. See this reference).
The use of the word although in this verse in some (a minority of) Bible versions is peculiar because its use means that what God wills, desires, wants, etc. may not come to pass after all. But the Greek word translated as wills, desires, wants, etc., i.e., thelo, is in all other cases in the New Testament and the Old Testament (in Greek, as in the Septuagint) used in a determinative way. That is, whatever God wills, desires, wants, etc., when the underlying word is thelo, is always accomplished.
Here are all of the Bible verses using thelo (1) when applying to God and (2) when enough context is provided in the verse to discern whether whatever is related to the verb thelo is in fact accomplished. Examples from the Old Testament are from the Septuagint.
2 Chronicles 9:8 “Blessed be the LORD your God who delighted in you, setting you on His throne as king for the LORD your God; because your God loved Israel establishing them forever, therefore He made you king over them, to do justice and righteousness.”
Job 23:13 “But He is unique and who can turn Him? And what His soul desires, that He does.”
Psalm 18:19 “He brought me forth also into a broad place; He rescued me, because He delighted in me.”
Psalm 115:3 “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.”
Psalm 135:6 “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.”
Proverbs 21:1 “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
Isaiah 55:11 “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”
Matthew 26:39 “And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.’”
Mark 14:36 “And He was saying, ‘Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.’”
John 5:21 ”For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.”
Acts 18:21 “but taking leave of them and saying, ‘I will return to you again if God wills,’ he set sail from Ephesus.”
Romans 9:18 “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”
1 Corinthians 4:19 “But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power.”
1 Corinthians 12:18 “But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.”
1 Corinthians 15:38 “But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.”
Colossians 1:27 “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
As can be seen, no matter what the word is that conveys what God wants, be it wants, desires, wills, delights in, pleases, or wishes, He accomplishes. Thus, when applied to God, thelo indeed seems to mean “To be resolved or determined, to purpose absolutely.”
This conclusion makes the contradictory versions of Romans 9:22 puzzling. What possible rational explanation is there for such a contradiction, especially given that one of the versions reduces the power of God, a power clearly supported by the rest of the Bible? Is it that some translators simply do not see that the word although changes the meaning of the verse, making it contradict the version without the although?
"We regard the Scriptures as the records of God’s successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives." W.E. Channing
It helps me to remember that scripture is progressive, and the final revelation of God in Jesus is the perfect and clearest revelation; that it is wise to focus on what is clearly taught; that our faith and beliefs are based on the ‘nobler system’, not on OT literalism, but on clear and bright NT teaching
Of doubting there is never an end; in the meantime, why not just do the will of God? That clears up many doubts.
Perhaps a song, will clear things up?
Well, I’m a prospect for the Eastern Orthodox - OCA branch. And a “friend of the club” - via the RCIA - RC program. But once I choose a club to ride with…and put on their colors…I will adapt their rules and regulations.
To get in the mood, I’m playing in a band - with my cowbells
I don’t see how differing translations need mean that a verse itself is contradictory. It might leave us unsure, but might it simply mean that one translation more correctly reflects the author’s meaning than the other?
I’m unclear what you mean by a “true” interpretation, and what your refer to as being interpreted… Of course, one could believe that there are other routes to truth besides non-infallible Scriptures.
But I assume tomatohorse’s concern is that even if one could make a (truly) correct interpretation of a fallible text, one then still could not assume that what that text indeed intended to teach is true.
Ok, Bob.
Agreed. hmmm: 
But the different translations are contradictory. One says God does demonstrate His wrath and make His power known. The other says He does not demonstrate His wrath and make His power known.
A = not A is a textbook contradiction.
I’m not convinced your modern English example legitimately expresses the meaning of the ancient Greek text, thereafter parsed into English accordingly. Both versions really carry the same meaning because of the word “endured” — that word clarifies or qualifies the wanting / although wanting reading, i.e., endured makes the same case according to either reading.
Tomato,
In terms of infallibility of the Torah, there was a cool reason that I came across a while back. It is called Torah code - fairly hard to explain but an easy concept once you understand it so Im just going to link a good site. Also take it with a grain of salt, because I think some people can go a bit too far on it and get carried away.
https://www.differentspirit.org/evidence/torah-code.php
Hope this was something cool for you.
Yessir. How to choose? Try to understand the big picture, then see if the little picture fits or doesn’t fit. The little picture being the verse in question.
I don’t see how the word endured relates to this issue.
You might be missing the point of a concessive conjunction, which although is here. Again, the concessive conjunction although expresses an idea that suggests the opposite of the main part of the sentence. So, when it occurs in a sentence (as in the NASB), it by definition suggests the opposite of the main part of the sentence. But when it does not occur in a sentence (as in the ASV), no such expression of the opposite of the main part of the sentence is suggested.
So, the NASB suggests the opposite, and the ASV does not.
Thus, again, A = not A is a textbook contradiction.
The big picture is the definition of thelo as used in the Bible with reference to God (as well as the idea of biblical inerrancy). This verse impinges strongly on that definition (as well as on the idea of biblical inerrancy), thus justifying the attention being paid to these two contradictory versions of Romans 9:22.
Got it. I guess I was saying that one’s big picture - the Character of God we see in Christ - mitigates strongly in favor of one of those versions.
So, you do agree that the presented versions of Romans 9:22 are contradictory?
Looks like it to me. I’d be very interested in what hermeneutical principles resulted in such a difference.
AG, good point. I definitely believe the Bible has been tampered with. The prophets and the NT writers even claim that this is the case.
Jer.8:8 " How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord.’, when actually the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."
According to Jeremiah, God never gave any commandments about burnt offerings and sacrifices.(7:22)
Paul says that Moses was following the words of Christ, and the Lev. law is certainly not the word of Christ.
HF, Then I’d say the Bible is both errant and fallible.
Yes, I would also. I have checked with references and with some people who know Greek. My impression from these inputs is this.
First, several Greek words that mean although could have been used in Romans 9:22, but were not. Second, sometimes a word is used to trigger the inclusion of the word although in a translation of the Greek. That is not the case in this verse either because the trigger is absent. Third, sometimes context is used to suggest a concessive reading of the text and such a concessive reading would include the word although. That interpretation would be up to the translator. Apparently, that’s what was done here. It was a very subjective decision to include the word although. As I said, and anyone can check this: in most Bible versions, the word although is not included in Romans 9:22.
I wish we could get a definitive answer to this puzzle from someone here who knows Greek well enough to solve it.
I think to make a point you may be straining gnat just a tad; which making the point is fair enough, but to make your point I’d simply be appealing to the weight translational evidence which strongly mitigates against the although reading. But to try and dovetail English grammar neatly onto Koinē Greek… well they are just two different birds – and one of those extinct
The debate has raged in the past as to whether the participle clause <θέλωv> thelōn is best understood as causal or concessive — it seems causal has won the day, as per the 59 readings HERE of which “although” only appears 7 times and four of those break down to two as they are just variations of the same base text — so really… “although” only appears 5 times out of 59 translations. There’s your weight of evidence.