Featured NIV or ESV?

You missed the footnote which you are so careful to observe in your NASB and NET translations:"Or Christ,that person is a new creation."

 

This verse and the previous examples I provided are departures from the Masoretic Hebrew text in favor of the ancient Qumran [Dead Sea] Scrolls.

This particular verse is one I check for in every new translation I read.

It is interesting because the psalm is an acrostic psalm missing the letter "N" [nun] in older bibles. The addition is found in the Qumran texts which fills in the missing letter.

Psalm 145:13

NIV Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. The LORD is trustworthy in all he promises and faithful in all he does.

ESV Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. [The LORD is faithful in all his words and kind in all his works.]

NASB95 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.

AV 1873 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

Rob

 

Think that they could have updated it Without bring into it the gender issues!

And do still like and use my 1984 Niv!

 

Think that most of the time, the versions will either have it translated, or in the varient notes the differing wys to render it, so no real "agenda" to distort the Bible, just honest disagreements on which to give priority status to which source text used!

 

There is no excuse for your ignorance --you have been informed on this time and time again and still refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Do you want to call the following "gender issues"?

John 1:4

ESV : In him was life, and the life was the light of all men.

NIV : In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Acts 4:12

ESV : And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

NIV : Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Romans 5:18

ESV : Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

NIV : Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

 

Many times one Greek word has to be rendered into several English words.

The NLT and HCSB also have "watch over." And part of the Net note for this is:"metonymically [it] could mean 'watch over,protect,guard.' "

That may be what you see, howver the NIV translators do not enter into their task lightly. Some of the finest Bible scholars are on the team.

No, Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV renders it :"But the king will rejoice in God; all who swear by God will glory in him, while the mouths of liars will be silenced."

No, Jon, you are mistaken. The NIV text reads :"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord..."

The very same John who penned that Epistle wrote the Gospel of John. You need to compare 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52.

Thanks for your efforts Jon. Just be sure to actually quote what the NIV really says.

 

You're about 15 years younger than I am --don't speak of old age prematurely.

The above nugget was buried in your wordy paragraph. You need to explain the reasons for your wild assertions.

The strangeness of the word propitiation would indeed be a cause for folks stumbling.

In NET notes it says:"The English word 'propitiation' is too technical to communicate with many modern readers, and a term like atoning sacrifice (given by Webster's New International Dictionary as a definition of propitiation) is more appropriate here."

In 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 other Bible versions use the term "atoning sacrifice" such as ISV,NET Bible, Weymouth and Web. And I think the MLB as well as Norlie does too.

In Romans 3:25 the NIV footnote has the following info for sacrifice of atonement:"Refers to the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant."

In NLT1 (the 1996 edition) it has this rendering for the verse:"For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us..."

In the Darby translation which is said to be even more literal than the 1901 ARV it has :"whom God has set forth a mercy-seat..."

The term proptiation is not indispensable.

 

Have you had any surgeries yet? That may qualify you for feeling older.

But when I speak of the NIV it refers to the current edition.

 

"To the Hebrew people" --you mean in the Hebrew. Well at least two other translations use the phraselogy of "all who swear by God" are something very much like it. It makes it plain that God and not the king is being referenced. Now if you think it's a major deal for a noun --God --to used instead of a pronoun --him-- then you'd have to give an explanation why the ESV does the very same thing on multiple occasions in the New Testament.

I was simply quoting the whole verse of the NIV text instead of a partial quote you gave of it. Yet you had quoted the entire verse from the ESV.

Why do you assume the readership is casual? Some readers may have English as a second or third language. Others may have lower literacy rate.

You keep saying that. But the NIV and the other translations that I referenced used "sacrifice of atonement."

But the bare word 'atonement' is used quite frequently in the ESV Old Testament.

Perhaps it is not necessary to do that sort of grappling when other,less difficult words are at our disposal.

 

But then, you said on 6/26/2013 :"We use the NIV in church now."

And you said this on the same day: "Quite often the NIV gets it right."

Apparently one year ago you had not yet made your groundbreaking discovery that the ESV and NIV are Calvinistically-inspired translations that must be rooted out.

 

Wouldn't the reader of the 1984 Niv alsounderstand thatwhen it states among men, of men, refers to women also?l

That we are the sons/daughters of God?

Why change it, especially as the version already had rendered the passages correctly, as they did get that there were still some passages that were meant to reflect "male bia", and why change it, when already was read and understood as they sought?

Most of what some have perceived to have been male bias in the bible versions actually did reflect what God stated and meant?

 

What verse are you discussing --1 John 2:2? I will assume it is that verse. A translation can't be a Bible commentary. A student of the Word will seek out the meaning of a given passage and related passages.

See above. It's my view that within the text an understandable rendering is better than a confusing one. A person should consult a Bible commentary or other helps to supplement their understanding.

It's not an either/or situation. A student of the Word will seek out an explanation. You are under the impression that by using the specific word "propitiation" --then poof, the reader will have an orthodox comprehension of Christ's cross-work. No John. It doesn't work that way.

If it is difficult then it's not clear. ;-)

You are fighting a losing battle. Using that particular word does not solve all problems when it comes to...watch out...the Atonement! One old-fashioned Latinate term will not a good translation make said Yoda.

The phraseology of "atoning sacrifice has been a common rendering for a while now. It is not just a NIV reading. As I mentioned, the Norlie and MLB, if my memory serves me correctly, used it. Some early 20th century translations employed it such as: the Twentieth Century New Testament, Weymouth, and Goodspeed. And some modern version use the term too :The WEB has it, as well as the NRSV, NET Bible and the ISV.

 

Do you know what the word vernacular means? Should a good modern version render the Word in the vernacular or not?