Another New Translation

Actually, Tiny, shouldn't you have written that without any spaces?

 

yep you got me. You are right.. I humbly bow.

 

Reads like the 1960 version . . . or at least that is the one I memorized this from.

 

Thanks for the good word, tinytim. I know you to be a pastor with a burden for missions.

 

And all in caps? :tongue3:

 

Alot of "off topic" posts, eh?

 

In one of Eugene Nida's books he tells about visiting 30 different countries to help with Bible translation products. Where are the scholars doing this now? There are a few. Check out Bibles International at: http://www.biblesint.org/

I think you hit the nail on the head! Nobody makes ANY money out of a tribal translation for a people group of 5000. But oh, the rewards in Heaven. :saint:

 

Amen. Thanks, John. With the ISV we've just continued hauling water to the ocean, never mind that around the world there are those who cry out "I thirst!"

 

:laugh: :applause:

And I also believe, ALL IN UPPER CASE??

:laugh: :type:

Ed

 

Sorry John, didn't get to your post before I posted mine.

Ed

 

TinyTim wrote:

After my previous whimsical responses, let me say,

"Amen, brother. If the ISV gives someone who has not had decent access to a Bible a copy for the first time, God bless the translators, publishers and everyone else involved with it."

Ed

 

Yeah, when there is already more than one available, what's the point in publishing more? Maybe we'll have the chance to ask [snip] that very question some day. The Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible should have been sufficient.

 

Great minds think alike. :thumbs:

 

Isv

Well, to be honest, I haven't looked into the ISV for about 3 years now since I first gave it a close once-over online. (I still have it as a PDF file.) I found too many texts distorted to support a "Lordship Salvation" position. So I do not like the ISV. But I don't have any problem with anyone who chooses to use it. I just think it has a bias. (Yes, I did email the committee about some specific texts I didn't like, but their response back was less than overwhelming.)

I suppose I should look it over carefully again... about time.

FA

 

ISV - tense handling

I'll post 1 John 1:6-10 and I think you'll see the issue I have with how they handle the tenses... esp. the present tense - always insisting on some sort of gnomic present tense (habitual present), which is actually quite rare:

1 John 1:6-10 If we claim that we have fellowship with him but keep living in the darkness, we are lying and the truth is not in us.6 But if we keep living in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.7 If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.8 If we make it our habit to confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us those sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.9 If we say that we have never sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.

Now, tell me... where does "make it a habit" come from above? Read vs. 9 carefully. We've got to "make it a habit" of confessing our sins... otherwise God is not faithful to forgive us our sins. Give me a break! That's horrible and a distortion of the Greek. And it's even worse in 1 John 3. But first, chapter 2...

1 John 2:3-5, 15 This is how we can be sure that we have come to know him: if we continually keep his commandments. The person who says, “I have come to know him,” but does not continually keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.3 But whoever continually keeps his word is the kind of person in whom God's love has truly been perfected.

15Stop lovinga the world and the things that are in the world. If anyone persists in loving the world, the Father's love is not in him.

In their published description, they take great pride in how they have handled tenses... personally, that's the issue I have with the ISV. These are simple present tenses above. It should be simply something like...

This is how we can be sure that we have come to know him: if we keep his commandments. The person who says, “I have come to know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But whoever keeps his word is the kind of person in whom God's love has been perfected.

15Stop lovinga the world and the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the Father's love is not in him.

When they translate it as they have they do not allow the reader to see other possible interpretations of the text other than their own Reformed viewpoint.

1 John 3...

1 John 3:4-9 Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, No one who remains in him goes on sinning. The one who goes on sinning hasn't seen him or known him. Little children, don't let anyone deceive you. The person who practices righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. The person who practices sin belongs to the evil one, because the devil has been sinning since the beginning. The reason that the Son of God was revealed was to destroy the works of the devil. No one who has been born from God practices sin, because God's seed abides in him. Indeed, he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born from God. and there is not any sin in him.

I do not like how the ISV handles tenses. BTW, here's Galatians 2:20 - just looked it up:

20I no longer live, but Christ lives in me, and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

I recognize that some view PISTIS there as referring to Christ's faithfulness," (I do not). I think it is best translated as "faith in the Son of God." But translating PISTIS as "faithfulness" needs to be supported from the context. And just to show that I am not being prejudicial, I do like very much how they handled John 3:16...

For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.

Though again translating MONOGENHS as "unique" may be a little strong... usually just "only" is sufficient. And the ISV is a good translation for stimulating thoughts on possible ideas that often just get passed by with most translations. Problem is, I usually do not see the idea they are stimulating in the Greek text.

FA

 

good stuff

actually, some good analysis in the above post. That is the stuff we need to see!

Now, I have a question. Since my church gives right about 60% of its total income directly to overseas missions, and most of that is specifically for Wycliffe translators, I guess that means I am allowed to use more translations than someone who's church does not support missions in such a way?

I have never used the ISV, and prolly wont, simply because I feel it will be too close to the NLT, and wont be needed.

HOWEVER, I just wonder, and I dont mean to point fingers, but merely to cause thought, if those who constantly complain about how scholars use their time are using ALL their spare time for NEEDED things?

What talents do you have? How often do you use them for something that isnt needed?

Shall we remove the plank first? Shall we go to our church's next business meeting and ask them to send more money to Wycliffe and groups of the like? Will we use our talents in a NEEDED way 100% of the time?

 

On the contrary, check your BADG. "Unique" is right on for monogenes. If John meant "only" he would have used monos.

 

I like your church! But I suspect it is a rare one to have so much of the budget go for a ministry doing Bible translations.

 

Understood. And I have checked it on this John. But I was once told by a Greek prof that "unique" or "one-and-only" was a bit too strong here.

BGAD says first "only, as in an only son." This being the frst defn. it should have a greater priority. The question is regarding whether GENES has to do with GINNAW ("to be born") or GINOMAI ("to be, become") The earlier translations of "only begotten" assumed the former, but people these days say that it probably is from the latter - the idea of the only come into being.

BGAD lists a context for it meaning "unique and alone." They say that "the meanings 'only, unique' may be quite adequate here" (For all uses in the NT)

But I have no problem with "unique," and BGAD does allow it, you're right there. Liddell & Scott has,

I notice that they opt for the GINOMAI origin in trying to break down the root.
They have, "only-begotten (whatever that means), single, one and the same blood."

Anyway, your correction is accepted, though L & S does not agree, FWIW. So it seems that the lexicons are split on this one.

FA