Search results

"I appreciated all the comments..." OR "I appreciated all those comments..."

Only at the start of verses 13, 15, 17 and 20.

Genesis 21:16 ESV : Let me not look at the death of the child NIV : I cannot watch the boy die. 24:40 ESV : prosper your way NIV : make your journey a success 26:8 ESV : saw Isaac laughing with Rebekah NIV : saw Isaac caressing his wife Rebekah 27:28 ESV : May God give you of the dew of...

Genesis 6:12 ESV : all flesh had corrupted their way NIV : all the people on the earth had corrupted their way 7:18 ESV : The waters prevailed NIV : The waters rose 9:5 ESV : From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. NIV : from each human being, too, I will demand an...

I will be quoting snips from Robert Alter's book The Art Of Bible Translation. He is not a Christian, but a consideration of his thoughts are valuable. He is a Hebraist, so he comes with a great deal of knowledge. "The practice of translation, as I have learned from experience, entails an...

Those passages are not part of the original.

What is your objection? 'Straitly' isn't even in modern dictionaries. Of course it is archaic. Why would any Bible translation across the spectrum use it? It's unreasonable. To insist on using outdated words is a wasted enterprise. You insist on things that Tyndale or even Erasmus would oppose...

I wouldn't look to him as a valued source. He doesn't own a copy of it. He has reviewed a few verses of one chapter of one of 66 books. That's not someone who can give you a critical examination of the entire translation. After he has reviewed 1/66 of the canon then you can conclude if he has...

On the train.

You're in luck. That's what the NIV does! (By the way, 'meant' and 'intended' are redundant.)

The so-called "many" are those who, like you do not own a copy of it. Therefore they speak out of the abundance of their ignorance. Aside from myself there are a number here who quite eagerly say the 2011 edition is superior to the 1984.

"Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history...surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable...Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (Baptist Successionism : A Crucial...

You need to clarify. "An old one" is rather vague. The current NIV is almost a decade old. Then there's the 1984 edition. If you don't have a physical copy of the current edition that you have actually read, you have based your opinion on faulty grounds.

Did you know that in one movie four of them appeared in a scene? Curly was ill and it was basically a cameo.

So I suppose you prefer to continue having unbalanced wheels on your car because to have them balanced would be bad. You make up words, misspell words, and here offer the opposite of what any standard dictionary defines as balanced.

Do you have a physical copy of it? If not, you, like Y-1, haven't much ground to stand on.

No, my unenlightened one.

It's not an overreach at all. The important question is : Does it change the meaning of the passage? No, nary a whit.

I've been saying and demonstrating the same thing about the ESV for ages.

The REB renders Col. 1:15 as "He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all creation." A part of the NET note for this kind of rendering :"In Col. 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus' rank as over and above creation." So the NLT reading is legitimate "...He...is...