NIV vs. ESV, Part 2

You are relying on a false support.

Could you address my two questions that I posed in my last post please?

 

Seems like a real possibility.

 

The KJV, NKJV and NASB do it. That's one reason why they're the best translations for serious Bible students.

I've no idea.

????? Why on earth would that be an issue? But in fact you will find that it seldom happens because Greek uses fewer words than English. And it's 'fewer words,' not 'less words.'

You can't rely on translations that don't have them. The idea is great, and most helpful. :).

 

Sez you! :Tongue

Done! Your wish is my command. :)

 

LEB does it, also.

 

Thank you! I wasn't aware.

 

LOL!

Probably very few translations in other languages have an italics-fixation.

For consistency sake. If you are so fired-up thinking that when certain translations supply 'extra' words and should have italics each and every time (an impossibility) why shouldn't you have the same concern when translations sometimes use fewer words than the original?

That's utter nonsense and you know it.

 

He is right, as formal translation are better choices for serious bible studies!

 

Another "reply" of yours having nothing to do with my post which you have quoted.

 

:Smile:Biggrin:Laugh:Roflmao

 

"This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think that Fewer would do better. No fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than no less than a Hundred, but more strictly proper." (Robert Baker 1770)

So it was the personal opinion of an individual 247 years ago. Notice "I should think", "appears to me" and "more strictly proper."

You Brits and your pedantic ways --no wonder we had to thrash you in two wars. ;-)

 

If you can count it, it's 'fewer,' if you can't, it's 'less.' Fewer words, less speech. And calling me pedantic is the pot calling the kettle black. And watch out or we'll come and burn your White House down again. :D

 

"...the Oxford English Dictionary has examples of less being used with countable items going back to nearly the dawn of printed English and continuing to this day. I find it impressive that the first citation of less being used with a countable noun in the OED comes from King Alfred himself. He was the great promoter of English over Latin, and in the year 888, he wrote about less words.

Language researchers tend to believe that using less with some countable nouns is natural and that the restriction against doing so is constructed and forced." (Grammar Girl --Mignon Fogarty)

 

Was replying to the brother that liked the Nkjv!

 

No, you had quoted my entire post #47. Keep things straight man.

 

Why make it unnecessarily complicated and wordy? What's wrong with the simple and descriptive phrase, "anchored there?"


When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there.
Mark 6:53 NIV

When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and moored to the shore.
Mark 6:53 ESV


When they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret and anchored there.
Mark 6:53 NKJV

When they had crossed over, they came to shore at Gennesaret and anchored there.
Mark 6:53 CSB


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

why use anchor when " moored to" is more accurate? The NIV is making an assumption of given in Scripture.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I don't know that it's more accurate. I leave that to Greek scholars.

I do know that "moor to" implies a permanent structure on the shoreline whereas anchor implies, well, an anchor on board the boat that can be dropped anywhere. Do you think the boat was large enough to require a mooring?

 

the term means lit. "moored"

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Pastor today said it literally means "anchor".

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.