A brothers bowels

The TNIV is my primary text these days. Here it is:

"If any one of you has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in you?"

While keeping one foot in the ancient world, translators need to keep the other in the modern world.

If keeping the old idiom makes sense, then keep it. But it doesn't make sense, then it must be tweaked to make sense to the modern reader.

 

1 John 3:17
Whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? (1534 Tyndale's)

1 John 3:17
And whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? (1560 Geneva Bible)

1 John 3:17
But who so hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
(1568 Bishops' Bible)

1 John 3:17
He that shall have the substance of the world, and shall see his brother have need, and shall shut his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him? (1582 Rheims)

 

I prefer the NKJV

"But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

It expresses the truth in clear, unmistakable, and accurate words.

 

Aren't sisters in need sometimes also?

 

Of course. Are you suggesting adding "sisters" to every instance where "brothers" appears?

It is obvious what is intended here.

 

Your response is a catch 22. A non-church going person is not a sister, so the passage did not apply to them anyway. The scripture was fine for both men and women up until it was changed. Funny, how that a portion of scripture that was accepted to include both sexes has to be changed so as to appease feminist.

 

Rip: Hmm, the three oldest that you cited speak in more understandable English to today's readers. The Rheims ( and by extension -- the KJV ) uses an inelegant and awkward expression which sounds even more dated.The KJV came out 77 years after the 2nd Tyndale Translation. But the latter sounds more modern in many ways.

 

By the way, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible used "heart" at 1 John 3:17.

1 John 3:17
But he that hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his heart from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1535 Coverdale's)

 

The 1611 KJV seems to have combined the rendering of Tyndale's, Geneva, and Bishops' ["compassion"] with the rendering of the 1582 Rheims ["bowels"] for its seeming double rendering ["bowels of compassion"].

While not in italics in the 1611 edition, some later editions of the KJV puts the "of compassion" in italics.

 

Silly, isn't it!? I like your reasoning Cutter. :thumbs:

 

I checked all the pre-1611 English Bibles I have, and the source of the KJV's "bowels" at this verse seems to be the 1582 Rheims as indicated earlier.

1 John 3:17

He that hath the cattle of this world, and seeth that his brother hath need, and closeth his entrails from him, how dwelleth the charity of God in him (1395 Wycliffe's Bible)

Whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1534 Tyndale's)

But he that hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his heart from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1535 Coverdale's Bible)

Whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1537 Matthew's Bible)

He that hath the substance of this world, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his inward affection from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1538 Coverdale's N. T. in his Latin-English N. T.)

But whoso hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth up his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1540 Great Bible)

And whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1557 Whittingham's N. T.)

And whosoever hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1560 Geneva Bible)

But whoso hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him: how dwelleth the love of God in him (1568 Bishops' Bible)

He that shall have the substance of the world, and shall see his brother have need, and shall shut his bowels from him: how doth charity of God abide in him (1582 Rheims N. T.)

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him (1611 KJV)

 

You have some misconceptions. According to your way of thinking :[If an unregenerate woman reads "sees his brother in need" and thinks this only applies to men then that's no problem. She's not a believer anyway, so what?] Hmm, I thought most Christians would want a non-believer to read a Bible that presents the truth of God's Word clearly. I didn't know that some believers rejoice in confusing a non-believer. To have the said text read "sees a brother or sister in need"does not express the truth?! The word "brother" in some translations does not include female believers?! You know that those translations had an inclusive meaning.So, since regenerate readers of those translations of the past with "sees a brother in need" have realized that those words includes both male and female believers, why would you object to a version which spells that out directly?

Appeasing feminists is not the goal of modern translations which have a rendering like "sees a brother or sister in need". That's faulty,and judgmental reasoning. Translators who use a rendering like the latter want to communicate God's Word in understandable language. Whether you recognize it or not English ( as all languages) is going through a shift. It's not a feminist plot ( although many detractors sound like adherents of conspiracy theories).All languages undergo changes, they don't stay static. If you don't agree then you are ignoring the obvious.No group has the power to alter the course of a language -- feminists or any other.The changes are God-ordained. The Lord is the author of the transformation of languages.

As I have pointed out many times, the ESV which has "brother" in the text also has 151 footnotes which say "or brothers and sisters"along with some explanation.As far as I am concerned those objecting to the use of "a brother or sister" based on thinking a feminist plot is brewing, are of the same camp as those who thought that the MV's were of the Devil. They thought so because the words "thee","thy" "thine"and such were no longer present.Get over it buddy.Some of the most conservative Bible commentators and preachers also spell it out as meaning brothers and sisters. Liberalism this is not.

 

[link to deleted post snipped]

First of all your source is almost 30 years old.It was written about nine years before the NRSV was released.A number of things that were speculated upon were totally off-the-mark. The NRSV does not have the phrase "Child of God" in reference to Christ. And to say that the NRSV was "taking on the nature of a paraphrase"is simply absurd. God was not neutered and... The point is that piece was sensationalistic writing designed to stir up the masses.It spoke of things that had not yet transpired and painted things in a very negative light.

I'll admit that the NRSV was sponsered by liberals. There are aspects of that translation which are not so sound. But overall it's a fine translation. It bears a great deal of linkage with the KJV actually. The ESV, which many conservative Christians appreciate bears the greatest resemblance with the NRSV because both were based on the RSV.

But in my post #17 I said modern versions in general. I wasn't specifying the NRSV is particular.

I'd like you to face-off with some of the translators of TNIV and NLTse. You can charge them with tampering with God's Word, appeasing feminists, having an egalitarian agenda etc.See how far you'd get before a swift rebuke greets you and your ( to be charitable) ill-informed outlook.

The NLTse has a great deal of "inclusive language", about as much as TNIV. I dare you to reproach the likes of Darrel Bock, D.A. Carson, Doug Moo, Thomas Shreiner, Harold Hoehner, Robert Mounce and company. BTW, Dr. Mounce also contributed to the ESV and HCSB. Dr.Bock is also on TNIV's team.

Take your time and reread post #17.