Featured Recently Published NT Translation

This would be sue to the way they chose to translate ir was a viable option, but not the best one they could have chosen!

 

Really, because I have demonstrated that the ESV has grounds based on the Greek. γέγραπται being the perfect tense cares with it an action occurring in the past. Saying nothing in the Greek will not make γέγραπται go away.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Can you explain why? Since απο is an indicator of separation of time or space and the verb indicates that the writing or "not" of writing of names occurred in the past and is completed-- can you explain why the NRSV choose the less accurate rendering as opposed to the RSV?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Utter nonsense. Nothing in Greek grammar even suggests saying a word means the opposite of what it means.

 

Sure, because your claim is utter nonsense. The same words appear in Rev. 17:8 and if there was any validity to your nonsense, before would appear there too.

The NIV and NRSV both fixed the error.

 

You haven't been reason what I wrote then. And "before" is not the opposite of "from". Απο certainly can't mean "after" the foundation of the world. γέγραπται Makes that an impossibility

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Then explain to it to us. Appealing to other translations does not explain the Greek. I could easily level the charge of "group think" as you suggested on others verses on another thread.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Also feel free to answer the question of the Greek that as been asked over and over. I believe you can find it on post 52.....and probably 4 or 5 others.

You can't answer why "from" is used if you can't answer that question.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Three more obfuscation posts, presenting utter nonsense.
The same words appear in Rev. 17:8 and if there was any validity to your nonsense, before would appear there too.
The NIV and NRSV both fixed the error.

Sad that no excerpt of new version was presented, so we could discuss something of validity.

 

I thought that to you the niv was no good though, so how can it fix anything?

 

Yet another falsehood, another smear, another off topic post.

The NIV is "no good" as a study bible because it omits words and phrases, adds words and phrases, and changes the meaning of words and phrases. The fly in the buttermilk is there is absolutely no need for these "loose translations" in order to provide clarity or accuracy. OTOH, only Calvinists claim "before" is not a mistranslation of "apo" at Rev. 13:8 in the ESV. "Loose translations" therefore allow "agenda driven" inaccuracies to adulterate God's word.

 

Let's compare the two:
1) The NASB omits "look"
2) David goes with "Just" and the NASB goes with "righteous" Since treating Jesus with justice is in view, "Just" appears to be better.
3) David's "had not agreed with the Council and their actions" more accurately translates the phrase.
4) Split decision, the NASB adds in italics "a man" but "a city of the Jews" wins on clarity.
5) Sorry but both translations translate "apo" as "from" and do not mistranslate it as "before."
6) Another split decision, neither rendered the last phrase "this one approached Pilate and requested the body of Jesus."

Certainly from this very limited comparison, this new version appears to be a solid effort to present God's word.

 

Revelations 13 and 17 "apo" is a greek word indicating "from" but in the context it means at the time before the foundations of the world, in that time in which the world was chaos upon chaos (Genesis 1). "From" the foundations of the creation, the intent was to have names in the book of life, or there would be no purpose to salvation and Christ's sacrifice.

Therefore, the word "before" is also correct.

What to me is most remarkable is that those who deny the Calvinistic thinking do so despite these two passages. The names are already recorded. All will worship the enemy of God EXCEPT those whose names are found in the book of life that was written before and existed from the foundation of the world.

Doesn't the NASB use "καταβολή" which Christ uses for indicating a period from, before or since the foundation?


Frankly, I am not following why there is contention over this single word unless there is some dispute of doctrine, but there cannot be such a dispute for it is evident that the beast is never worshiped at any time by folks whose names are written in the book of life.

 

Yet another Calvinist making nonsensical claims, denying the very word meaning used in the inspired text.
From or since does not mean before. From the foundation of the world refers to creation and afterword, until the end of the age. Before the foundation of the world refers to before creation. Pay no attention to these agenda driven corruptions of God's word.

 

I have now looked at two more snippets, and I am far less enthused

These added words interpret the text and should have been footnoted.

Where to start? This translation is in my opinion awful. Do all the "in the beginning" phrases read origin in this translation?
1) there was the Logos adds words, "was the Logos" clearly translates the words.
2) again David adds "present" in his translation, but the text indicates proximity, i.e. with.
3) David did not capitalize "god." Apparently David provided several pages of footnotes to support this choice.

 

Van,

“From” is not an indication of the start, but of the existence of at the time.

Therefore, such existed before creation, was in existence at creation, and is used after destruction.

For you to deny the clear statement of Scripture is just obstinacy.

 

Folks, pay no attention to the utter nonsense being posted. "Apo" means from, out of, and since. It never means before.
Note the effort to say, from the foundation means the same as before the foundation. Utter nonsense.
Compare Rev. 13:8 with Rev. 17:8 and ask yourself why the same Greek phrase is translated in two different ways in the ESV, but not the NIV, NET, NKJV, LEB or NASB.

Does anyone have any comments concerning the three verses from Hart's translation?

 

Hart's translation of John 1:1

In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with God, and the Logos was god;​

Apparently the differing meanings of "logos" were thought too complex to provide distinct English words and phrases for each of the meanings. So Mr. Hart chose to simply transliterate the term. Basically "logos" of God refers to that which accomplishes God's purpose. And the two very different fulfilling meanings are (1) a message (command, instruction) of God and (2) the Second Person of the Trinity. In John 1:1 of course the Second Person of the Trinity is in view with Logos being God Almighty.

Behold, the Logos of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Here is an example where the message of God, in this case the speech of Jesus, is in view.

I would say that when logos is used to refer to the words or message from others (not God) a different and distinct word or phrase should be used to avoid confusion with the capitalized Logos.

 

So the Esv/Niv/Csb are all no good as translations, all adulterated and watered down word of God?

 

Jesus is the very Logos of God as in Him being the Word of God that was the Creator of all things!
He would not be the Logos as Savior, but the Son of God/Messiah.