Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by banana, Oct 10, 2015.
Are there any?
Based on the overwhelming lack of replies -- I guess not.
I received an infraction for engaging in hate speech when I posted on the flaws of certain versions.
You did far worse than that.
Do you have a link to the post?
One of my basic positions is that "word for word" translation philosophy versions (NASB95) are better for bible study then more liberal versions (ESV, NIV, NLT). Consider Revelation 13:8 where a Greek word (apo) which means out of or from or since is translated as "before." No lexicon includes that meaning as far as I know.
Next, consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which reads "chosen for salvation" in most versions, but some have chosen to be saved. Thus a word which is a noun in the Greek (Salvation) is turned into a verb (Saved). This allows the following "through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth" to be modifying "saved" rather than chosen (the verb in the Greek). Next consider James 2:5 where we are chosen as "poor to the world" and "rich in faith." Here, the compliment "rich in faith" further describes the condition of the chosen. However, by adding "to be" the text no longer says they were rich in faith when chosen.
You realize, of course, that "to be saved" is not a verb. It's an infinitive, functioning here as an adjective modifying firstfruits. Your opinions about Greek grammar would have more weight if you knew more about English grammar.
So the NASB gets it wrong here too? You want to make the text say what you believe, and hardly any translators agree with you, so they must all be wrong. Besides, it's a complement, not a compliment.
The translators of those versions are all more orthodox than you. You are the liberal.
Gee, I said "saved" is a verb not a noun. Why not address what I actually said? I said salvation in the Greek was a noun, not a verb. Why not address what I said. Your opinions about my views would have more weight if you actually addressed them.
Contrary to the thought for thought versions, "to be" is added in italics in the NASB, therefore the reader knows it is an addition to the text. I want translation versions to say what the actual message of God intended. When an addition alters the message rather than clarifies the message, the addition is a corruption.
Lets consider Revelation 22:21. Here is the NIV: 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.
And here is the NASB: 21 "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Here we see that the NIV uses a variant reading "be with the saints" and renders it "God's people." So the reader is unaware that many Greek texts simply read "be with all." So the translator's choice can be supported, but the majority of manuscripts provide a more inclusive rendering, i.e. "all."
You were forgiven.
They even named a forum after you... Missions / Witnessing / eVangelism
Are you now a Majority-text guy after all?
HCSB, ISV, ASV, ERV, Weymouth, WEB, NRSV :be with all the saints
NLT : be with God's holy people
Phillips : be with all his people
Hi Banana, I have provided four verses where some versions present questionable translation choices. What was the point of your opening post?
Here is another post addressing questionable translation choices:
Recently, a poster asserted God's love for mankind was not expressed in Titus 3:4. Here is how the NASB renders the verse:
But when the kindness of God our Savior and love for mankind appeared,
But if you look at the NLT, or ESV, or NIV, here is what you get; (1)But— When God our Savior revealed his kindness and love....(NLT)
(2)But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared.... (ESV)
(3)But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared....(NIV)
So at least three modern translations do not think "philanthrōpia" (Strongs' G5363) should be translated "love of men."
If we check other translations, we find almost all render the word love of men. Commentaries indicate this word expresses God's "all embracing love" for mankind. So yet again the translators choice denies the inclusive nature of God's love and grace toward men.
I already showed you that multiple versions (including your favs) used words that you oppose in Rev. 22:21.
For James 2:5 "to be" is used in NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET, WEB and Weymouth.
The ISV and GWT both have "to become."
The very versions you constantly extol go against your questionable translation choices. Hmm...
I have provided five verses where questionable translation choices were made.
And I have provided renderings for two of those references that show your translation choices are questionable.
Others that would agree with the NIV,ESV and NLT are Mounce, CEB, and NRSV --among others.