Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 15, 2016.
For serious bible studying?
I believe the ESV is slightly better than the NRSV. But neither one of them is anywhere near the top of my list for choice of bibles.
Is that due to their textual basis for translation, or how they translated?
Both. I prefer a Byzantine based bible translated using a verbal and formal equivalency.
That would include neither of those mentioned, although the ESV is more verbal and formal than the NRSV.
My bible of choice would be one I redacted (big word meaning "edited" - I am educated (for beyond my intellect) and the scholars union forces me to use such words to maintain my good standing) from all the English versions.
The only modern bible in English I can find that properly translates John 3:16 is the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which I reject as a good translation for many other reasons.
"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."
HCSB is the only bible translation wherein the translation committee had the courage to reject tradition and translate ουτως as "in this way" rather than as "so." (Of course they completely blow μονογενη as "one and only" when it means "only (divinely) generated" or "uniquely generated" as opposed to the many sons who were "regenerated.")
"So" was a perfectly acceptable way to translate ουτως when "so" meant "in this manner" (we still say "Do it so, and so" to indicate the manner or way something should be done) but in modern English the average reader will see "so" and think "so much" rather than "in this way" or "in this manner."
I must be old then as 'so' always came across as 'in this way'.
I use the ESV BTW for all purposes, but employ several other versions in study. In fact I consult many differing versions.
I was thinking the same thing.
No, TC. There are other translations that render it in your desired manner. The ISV and REB among others --don't have my notes or the time now. Maybe the NET too.
ISV: For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.
LEB: For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.
GW: God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.
WUEST NT: For in such a manner did God love the world, insomuch that His Son, the uniquely-begotten One, He gave, in order that everyone who places his trust in Him may not perish but may be having life eternal.
NET: For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
Sorry should have said "commonly used, printed, versions."
TC, do not try to spoil the nitpickers glory, they found something they could exploit as a fault.
In order to say the ESV or NRSV is better, one should provide some examples.
Genesis 3:16 ESV "contrary" should read "for" as per NRSV.
Matthew 23:13 ESV "would enter" should read "going in" as per NRSV
John 1:9 ESV "gives light to" should read "enlightens" as per NRSV
2 Corinthians 2:20 ESV "hostility" should read "selfishness" as per NRSV
Ephesians 1:5 ESV "purpose" should read "good pleasure" as per NRSV
2 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV "to be saved" should read "for salvation" as per NRSV
Revelation 13:8 ESV "before the foundation" should read from the foundation as per NRSV.
IMO the NRSV renders itself useless for serious Bible Study by its endeavours to be 'Gender Neutral.'
I am not a total fan of the ESV either, but it's better than the NRSV. The NASB is better than either if you want a Bible based on the Critical Text.
I hope I am not the only one to find irony in this post.
That is silly of you to say. It is actually gender-specific. It uses inclusive language when warranted.
You prefer using the outdated words of "brothers" and "brethren" instead of calling them brothers and sisters when it is obvious from the context that it does not refer to only adult male believers.
No it doesn't. It uses gender-inclusive language constantly.
'Brothers' or 'brethren' has been used for many years to apply to people of both sexes and I see no desperate need to change that. However, I would have no objection to a Bible version saying 'brothers and sisters' so that the words in italics show where the translators have added words not in the original.
My main objection, and the one that makes gender-inclusive Bibles unsuitable, is the changing of singular 'he' into plural 'they.' There are several instances where this practice obscures a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have given examples of this in previous threads.
That's falsehood MM.
In Matthew alone it uses "brother" or "brothers" with no sister(s) attached. See 1:2,11;4;18;21; 12:46,47,48,49: 13:55; 20:24; 22:25 and 28:10.
In the epistles :
1 Cor. 9:5;16:11 and12.
2 Cor. 8:23; 9:3,5
1 Tim. 5:1
Times change --languages change. That's why we don't use thee, thou, thy and thine any longer.
How generous of you.
You are a classic prescriptionist. Chaucer, Shakespeare and Jane Austin didn't feel the need to follow your antiquated rules.
Rippon, dear brother, we have had this discussion too many times before.
You read your Bible and I will read mine. Have a lovely day!
No....I see it too
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
But the word of God never changes. The Greek uses masculine nouns and pronouns to refer to people of both genders when being used in an inclusive or undetermined manner.
We have no warrant to change the word of God. To do so is to blaspheme He who inspired those sacred words.
The irony is that those who cannot discern the difference between finding fault with people and finding fault with doctrine, are those who find fault with people who find fault with their doctrine.