Calvinistic Bible Translations

[Yeshua1]

The New Revised Standard Version has "From" in 13:8. And correctly translates Romans 9:5.

you like their inclusive language overkill then also?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah. The RSV is also known to mistranslate other passages like: * Hebrews 1:3; * Romans 9:5; And most famously Isaiah 7:14 with
virgin in the margin. * compare those two with the NWT used by Jehovah's Witness cult.

Actually, you can translated Isaiah either way, as the Hebrew term used can refer to a young maiden or to a Virgin, but the Holy Spirit clued us to which was the preferred translation, as He used the greek word to mean virgin in the NT!

 

[David Kent]

No matter what the CoE idealists claim, I refuse to believe that a Church in love with the sacramental system under the control of a sacerdotal priesthood wearing the grave clothes of the Church of Rome could in actuality be calvinistic.

Today mostly they are not. The 39 articles were Calvinistic.

It could be said that the articles were Calvinistic, the membership is Arminian and the clergy is papal.

 

[David Kent]

Actually, you can translated Isaiah either way, as the Hebrew term used can refer to a young maiden or to a Virgin, but the Holy Spirit clued us to which was the preferred translation, as He used the greek word to mean virgin in the NT!

A maiden is a virgin.

 

[Rippon]

you like their inclusive language overkill then also?

You have quite an obsession.

 

[37818]

You do not determine the worth of a translation by comparing it to other translations. You determine the worth of a translation by comparing it to the original language texts.

Yes. But where two translations are using the same text and translale it differently from each other: They can be equivalent in meaning or different in meaning. One can be better than the other. Or they could be using a different variant of the text, in which case one textual reading is of the original and the other not. Or neither are correct, and there being a third reading which neither used.

 

[37818]

I did not mention the NRSV. Another non-sequitur.

And that does not change that NRSV is the revision of the RSV.

 

[TCassidy]

And that does not change that NRSV is the revision of the RSV.

What part of "I did not mention the NRSV" didn't you understand?

 

[37818]

What part of "I did not mention the NRSV" didn't you understand?

I never said you did cite the NRSV.

 

[TCassidy]

I never said you did cite the NRSV.

Yep, just another mindless non-sequitur.

 

[37818]

Actually, you can translated Isaiah either way, as the Hebrew term used can refer to a young maiden or to a Virgin, but the Holy Spirit clued us to which was the preferred translation, as He used the greek word to mean virgin in the NT!

The Septuagint uses the same Greek word for virgin in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew having the meaning of a chaste young woman. Also the Septuagint uses that word in Genesis 24:43 in contrast to Genesis 24:16.

 

[Yeshua1]

And that does not change that NRSV is the revision of the RSV.

A worse revision than the Esv !

 

[Yeshua1]

The Septuagint uses the same Greek word for virgin in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew having the meaning of a chaste young woman. Also the Septuagint uses that word in Genesis 24:43 in contrast to Genesis 24:16.

The Hebrew text though allows for either translation to be valid... The Virgin one is the preferred one though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. But where two translations are using the same text and translale it differently from each other: They can be equivalent in meaning or different in meaning. One can be better than the other. Or they could be using a different variant of the text, in which case one textual reading is of the original and the other not. Or neither are correct, and there being a third reading which neither used.

that does not mean though that means that one translation is better than another, as say the esv and Nas uses same source texts, but one can be more literal then another in how they rendered it, but with same essential meaning intact!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have quite an obsession.

With truth, yes!

 

[37818]

that does not mean though that means that one translation is better than another, as say the esv and Nas uses same source texts, but one can be more literal then another in how they rendered it, but with same essential meaning intact!

"Before" is not the same as "from." "Beloved" is not the same as "sanctified." "During" is not the same as "being ended." Etc.

 

[HankD]

"Before" is not the same as "from." "Beloved" is not the same as "sanctified." "During" is not the same as "being ended." Etc.

True, the point here with some of these prepositional phrases is that sometimes it can be difficult determining the authors positional point of view because in some cases "from", "since" and/or "before" will all work depending on the author's frame of mind even under inspiration.

Of course they may all work but only one is the most accurate.

After several pages and posts it is not evident to us (well maybe individually).

 

[Rippon]

A worse revision than the Esv !

The NRSV could be considered superior than the ESV on a number of fronts. Remember what D.A. Carson has said: "It's a jolly good translation."

 

[Rippon]

With truth, yes!

You are preoccupied with mendacity.

 

[Yeshua1]

True, the point here with some of these prepositional phrases is that sometimes it can be difficult determining the authors positional point of view because in some cases "from", "since" and/or "before" will all work depending on the author's frame of mind even under inspiration.

Of course they may all work but only one is the most accurate.

After several pages and posts it is not evident to us (well maybe individually).

Does this change any major doctrines then depending on how a prepositional phrase or word was translated?