Search results

Just follow my threads, especially the ones when my handle was simply Rippon. But here are two of my favorite snippets from the ESV: Lev. 26:10 : You shall eat old store long kept. Hebrews 13:2 : Some have entertained angels unawares. Both renderings me the chuckles.

The Factory of Fiction is at it again.

Oh, forget it.

George, you apparently have never read The Preface To The Reader of the KJV. They wanted to make a good one better.

We shall see.

Well, you were reluctant to categorize them earlier. You need to define what a "free translation" means in your Definition thread. The term "thought-for-thought" needs to be dismissed. What you call thought-for-thought is actually phrase-for-phrase, clause-for-clause, or even at times...

You can't even quote me accurately. Does the NLT border on the translation philosophy of the NLT?

I just did. Or did you mean the ESV?

The 1995 update was much better than the 1977 edition. But it used even less inclusive language than the ESV. The 77 was years behind in that respect. However if the ESV retains their same level of IL (or GA --gender-accurate) the 2021 NASB will gain ground. I think the rankings will be : 1)...

To reword your post : "I think the main complaint is how it handles Hebrew poetry." No, the main complaint is that it has poor English.

Because it is conservative, but has better English than the clunky ESV.

They are obviously deficient in that regard.

I couldn't decide whether to merely use the agree button or to push the funny button.

My prediction is that the 2021 NASB will do better than the ESV.

The NLT would be the least dynamic of the five. JJ has no term to describe these types of translations because he is loath to call them dynamic, or even functionally-equivalent.

A thing to note about the Legacy Standard Bible. It will be called LSB. At first hearing it sounds like LSD.

Come on now. The NIV has the better rendering. Let not that kind of phraseology be said in a 'modern' English translation, even the NIV needs to be weeded of these things sometimes. In these contexts the word 'body' is much better than 'flesh.'

But earlier you said you were surprised that N.T. scholars have used Nida's terms. Which is it? At first reading your comments you showed surprise. As if it was some new knowledge you acquired. Now you admit you know that NT Bible scholars across the spectrum use Nida's terms. I was simply...

The NET text has : "Would you indeed annul my justice?" 40:19 ESV : the first of the works of God NIV : It ranks first among the works of God The NET text is identical with the NIV.

"He hears not" is NOT current English.