When you ask questions designed to imply falsehood, do you mean you hate truth?
Why not actually address the topic? One of a kind translations (mostly off the mark) in the dreaded NIV?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Some Singular Readings In The NIV...
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Why not actually address the topic? One of a kind translations (mostly off the mark) in the dreaded NIV?
KJV 1 Chronicles 26
13 And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate.
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.
NIV
13 Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
14 The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.
15 The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons.
16 The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah. Guard was alongside of guard:
17 There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse.
18 As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
19 These were the divisions of the gatekeepers who were descendants of Korah and Merari.
HankD
All you are asking is to change the subject. You seem to not have any on topic views on singular verses.
BTW folks, if anyone thinks his question has not been answered in this very thread, you have another think coming.
Sometimes the Elizabethan-Jacobean (but beautiful) period English language of the KJV can be a challenge:
KJV 2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
NIV 2 Corinthians 6:12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
HankD
KJV 2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
NIV 2 Corinthians 6:12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
HankD
Koine Greek - From my studies Koine (theoretically) was developed from Attic Greek during the tyranny of Alexander who distilled it from Attic as a kind of shorthand to pass notes to and from his generals.
Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek
It became the "lingua franca" of the known world used not only as a "koine-common" global tongue but used by the "common" folk.
There seems a requirement on God's part that his word (for the most part) be aligned with the understanding of the "commoner", "the man in the street" (Book of Hebrews an exception). Thus the NT inspired via Koine Greek.
IMO This is fulfilled by the NIV, yes, perhaps a better job could have been done with toning down equivalency.
We like to use it our senior class. The NKJV is good but sometimes seems "forced".
A proliferation of translations helps us to capture "nuance" of the original languages IMO.
HankD
Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek
It became the "lingua franca" of the known world used not only as a "koine-common" global tongue but used by the "common" folk.
There seems a requirement on God's part that his word (for the most part) be aligned with the understanding of the "commoner", "the man in the street" (Book of Hebrews an exception). Thus the NT inspired via Koine Greek.
IMO This is fulfilled by the NIV, yes, perhaps a better job could have been done with toning down equivalency.
We like to use it our senior class. The NKJV is good but sometimes seems "forced".
A proliferation of translations helps us to capture "nuance" of the original languages IMO.
HankD
You'll grant then, that the KJV rendition of 2 Cor. 6:12 is not exhibiting beautiful English.
You'll grant then, that the very ornate style of the KJV is against the spirit of the original.
No doubt the NIV is in easier English, but is it an accurate translation? Is it actually translating what the Greek says?
2 Cor. 6:12, NKJV. 'You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.'
2 Cor. 6:12, NASB. 'You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.'
The subject of the sentence is 'you' not 'we.' The Greek verb stenorchoreo does not mean 'withhold' but 'restrict.' Interestingly, splanchna does actually mean 'bowels' or 'entrails' and the Greek is 'in us' rather than 'by us' (and certainly not 'from you'), so in its way the KJV is the most accurate translation. Just sayin'.
So just how much are we entitled to muck about with the God-breathed text? 'Bowels' is no longer used to portray the affections, so a different word there is allowable, and the Greek word en has many more meanings than only 'in.' But is it right to change the subject from 'you' to 'we,' to change the mood from passive/middle to active, to change the verb from 'restrict' to 'withhold'? I say no, but others will have their own views.
It is Jacobean period English and Everyone in 1611 knew what it meant and yes some might find it beautiful as I do loving the 1611 English KJV.
HankD
.
If you say so but then Martin why haven't you published your own MMV Bible in Modern English? Or maybe you have.No doubt the NIV is in easier English, but is it an accurate translation? Is it actually translating what the Greek says?
2 Cor. 6:12, NKJV. 'You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.'
2 Cor. 6:12, NASB. 'You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.'
The subject of the sentence is 'you' not 'we.' The Greek verb stenorchoreo does not mean 'withhold' but 'restrict.' Interestingly, splanchna does actually mean 'bowels' or 'entrails' and the Greek is 'in us' rather than 'by us' (and certainly not 'from you'), so in its way the KJV is the most accurate translation. Just sayin'.
So just how much are we entitled to muck about with the God-breathed text? 'Bowels' is no longer used to portray the affections, so a different word there is allowable, and the Greek word en has many more meanings than only 'in.' But is it right to change the subject from 'you' to 'we,' to change the mood from passive/middle to active, to change the verb from 'restrict' to 'withhold'? I say no, but others will have their own views.
Just kidin'
HankD