1 Corinthians 14:29

1 Corinthians 14:29

New Living Translation (NLT)

29 Let two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said.



1 Corinthians 14:29

English Standard Version (ESV)

29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

1 Corinthians 14:29

Amplified Bible (AMP)

29So let two or three prophets speak [those inspired to preach or teach], while the rest pay attention and weigh and discern what is said.

Other versions read like the NIV here. This is one of the reasons I am gravitating more to the more literal Bibles like the NASB and KJV/NKJV lately.

 

In thinking about this for a bit and looking at the context, this scenario does not seem very possible to me. The context of the passage is about order in the service. Paul talks just before about what happens if an unbeliever (outsider) comes in and sees certain things going on. After his statement on the prophets, he goes on to talk about women keeping silent in the Churches and asking for clarification from their husbands at home and not interrupting the service. So, I think it is unlikely that Paul jumps from addressing what goes on during the meeting to what happens before the meeting and then back to what happens during the meeting.

While it would be great if all Bible translations italicized added words (or somehow noted the literal rendering), it is not as an egregious error as it is made out to be. It is what the prophet speaks that is to be judged. Let's not forget that the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what they were told was true.

 

And as I have repeatedly pointed out -- it would be an optical nightmare to italicize as often in the text as you think proper. The NKJV and KJV don't do it nearly enough to be perfectly consistent. The original KJV did not have half as many italicized words as now. What about words from the original languages that were left untranslated? It is just not realistic. No translation of the Word of God can perfectly match-up with the original text of Scripture. To give readers the idea that only the italicized words are not the pure,unadulterated Word of God is giving readers a false impression.

Folks can consult a Bible commentary or any number of other Bible study helps now available to them to dig into a given passage.

 

You say the NIV leaves out many verses --and I say it leaves intact the words of the original. The KJV and NKJV indeed have added a slew of words not found in the original.

But again,lest a false impression is left by some,most modern Bibles in English and other languages follow the same textual principles as the NIV. The NIV is not out there alone in its textual decisions.The ESV,HCSB,NASB and many others do the very same thing. It's important to say this --because it's factual.

 

But,as I have tried to put out to you --those versions do not italicize or bracket each and every word and phrase that is a not as close as possible to a direct translation of the original. You are only fooling yourself if you think so.

The ordinary Western Bible reader has access to the internet with loads of Bible study helps. The ordinary reader of any Bible translation of any language who does not have access to a computer will still have enough information gleaned from their version to understand much of the Word of God. God provides.

 

SFAIK. I had to look that one up. It means so far as I know. The ESV,NRSV and other versions use what is known as formal equivalence.The NASB is not the only one.

 

It seems fairly straightforward to me: the unspecified thing being 'judged' would grammatically and logically be the last item mentioned specifically which in this verse is the prophetic 'speaking'.

It would be ludicrous to think that this could mean that the unnamed 'thing' to be judged could be just anything at random. The reader would be completely without guidance: are the speaker's clothes are to be judged? his hair? his posture? his education? or maybe his chariot to be judged? or his wife? etc.

The judgment of "what is said" is grammatically and logically implied. Therefore, it is not really a problem to make it explicit in the translation (especially in a dynamic rendering).

 

The italicizing of 'added' words is of little practical value. Many of the words in italics are little words like "is", "and", "are", "shall", and "even" that don't dramatically affect the meaning: How does it help you to know that an insignificant word like "is" was not from the original language text?

I can also assure you that there are hundreds more of 'added' words in the KJV that probably should be italicized but are not. If applied consistently, there would so many italics as to be distracting when read.

 

A fairly new one is the Lexham English Bible.

 

Yes indeedy. Just look at the marginal notes of the NASB where it shows the literal,but did not put it in the text.

In Genesis 3:19 it has "by the sweat of your face" in the text. However, the more literal translation would be:"by the sweat dripping off your nose."

In 1 Kings 3:9 the literal is "a hearing heart." But the NASB has "an understanding heart"in the text.

In Matthew 22:16 it has "defer to no one" in the text. But it literally is "you do not look at people's faces" as a translation of the Greek.

To further prove my point --look at an interlinear. Compare it with the NASB. Observe all the "liberties" the NASB took with the original text! (Said sarcastically)

You would have a very vexing time indeed attempting to place italics or brackets with all the added words! (Not to mention indicating missing words that are next to impossible to translate --or not that necessary)

 

Why do you constantly single-out the NIV as if it's the only translation that does not use italics or brackets (that much)?

That's interesting,though it's not a new concept your advancing. I'd like to know if translations in other languages like French and German practice what you advocate?

 

The 1933 English translation of the Syraic Peshitta by George Lamsa has at this verse:

Let the prophets speak two or three in turn, and let the others discern what is said.


The 1946 RSV N. T. has at this verse:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

 

You are certainly free to use the translation that you like best. Nobody is telling you any differently. I will continue to use the one I like best - and right now it is the NIV 1984. IMO - its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses.

 

I do not think Martin has missed the mark significantly. The translation should translate and not interprete the text. Therefore a highly readable translation that says what the orignianl language says seems desireable. I do not like added words, especially if they alter or interprete what is being said. So when I read my NASB95, I skip all words in italics.

Contextually the idea is letting one person present their information at a time so confusion is minimized. I too many teachers speak, what was said might be lost, whether what was said was truth or falsehood. Looking at it positively the truth might be lost and the falsehood glossed over. So let the speakers speak and the others evaluate seems to be the idea. Martin points out that by adding what was said, the possible idea of evaluting the prophets as opposed to what was said is hidden.

There was no need to add to the inspired word.

It is easy to attack the NIV or ESV in this case. But as others have pointed out, another verse could be cited where the NIV and ESV nail the original message, but the KJV, NKJV and NASB miss the mark.

So I think any serious bible student must compare the translations and then where they say different things, determine which comes closest to the author's intended message without taking away or adding our ever helpful ideas.

 

All translators interpret in the process of taking the original language into a modern language. It is not possible not to interpret. The words interpreter and translator are virtually interchangeable. And don't try to tell me that it only applies to secular matters --it goes on in the course of converting the original languages of the sacred text into a modern language.