2 Tim 2:15

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't think we should accept any modern renderings, including those done in the 17th century. Lets go back to REAL English and if you can't get it, buy a dictionary.


"Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Dr. Humberto Gomez Sr, a Bible-believing native Mexican, who has served as a Missionary to his own people for over 30 years, devoted 8 years of his life to revising the Spanish Bible, which eventually became known as the Reina Valera Gomez Bible (hereafter RVG). The RVG is a Spanish Bible of which all traces of the corrupt Alexandrian Texts have been removed. It is in total conformity to the Received Texts. And consequently it reads parallel with the KJV. But to Calvin George, this is not a good thing. To him, it’s a bad thing.
However, despite Calvin George’s disapproval of the RVG, worldwide support for this Spanish Bible is growing on a daily basis. - From www.biblefortoday.org

It is clear from the website, and from the passage in question in this thread, that this revision was not an attempt to bring a Spainsh translation into conformity to the TR, but the KJV.

Maybe one of our Spanish experts can tell us if estudia has the same idea of hard work and diligent application that study had in 1611. By the way, I have no problem with the KJV rendering here. Study means more, even today, than opening a book and cramming in facts.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It is clear from the website, and from the passage in question in this thread, that this revision was not an attempt to bring a Spainsh translation into conformity to the TR, but the KJV.

I would have to disagree, Roger. The quote I used from the website clearly says that it is in conformity to the TR and consequently reads parallel with the KJV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I would have to disagree, Roger. The quote I used from the website clearly says that it is in conformity to the TR and consequently reads parallel with the KJV.

If one reads the entire website itis clear that there was a heavy reliance on the KJV.

I would dare say, and I don't know Spanish, that the places where the KJV translated spoudazō to deal with diligence this Spanish version did the same. On this, however, I stand open to correction if I am wrong.

 

[4His_glory]

It is clear from the website, and from the passage in question in this thread, that this revision was not an attempt to bring a Spainsh translation into conformity to the TR, but the KJV.

Maybe one of our Spanish experts can tell us if estudia has the same idea of hard work and diligent application that study had in 1611. By the way, I have no problem with the KJV rendering here. Study means more, even today, than opening a book and cramming in facts.

Right on Roger. Gomez is a pawn of KJVO only extremists. His work is not gaining acceptance like this web site claims. The only ones that seem to use it are the KJVO missionaries who push it upon the people to whom they minister.

One example of how ridiculous this work is if found in 1 Cor. 13. The Spanish word for charity has very strong Catholic connotations- more so than the English word. For this reason the 1960 RVR changed the word to amor which is a better word with no catholic connotations. But KJVO pastors, some who did not speak much Spanish if any said that the word must be caridad instead of amor. A bad move. At least this is a claim of Calvin George. I have no reason to doubt him though.

 

[4His_glory]

I cannot say it was "wrong", but that what you offered shows the Spanish to reveal diligence requires study.

You have no point, but a preconceived notion.

What on earth are you talking about? When a Spanish speaker reads the passage in no way shape or form will he come away with the idea that it means to study. I will grant that studying is included but the idea of the original is much more profound and precise than just studying. Which the Spanish and some MVs portray accurately.

I see the SFIC ignored my question. He and Askjoe claim the NKJV is inaccurate to translate the passage "Be diligent to present yourself..." The RVR which was translated before the KJV says essentially the same thing. "Procura con diligenica presntarte... So Is the RVR wrong?

Don´t evade the question. Its legit since it appears to me that there is a claim that only the word study is accurate.

 

[4His_glory]

I would have to disagree, Roger. The quote I used from the website clearly says that it is in conformity to the TR and consequently reads parallel with the KJV.

No Gomez relied on the KJV, though not exclusively. See my post above for an example where he used to the KJV. His entire project smack heavy of the idea that the KJV is the only perfect translation. Gomez admits to using the the KJV and greek to to his work. But in reality he leans way to much on the KJV readings which is foolish. You should only use the original languages if you are going to do a translation or revision.

Look at many of Gomez´s supporters. Many are men who can not speak a lick of Spanish yet the praise this version without even being able to read it themselves. They praise it because it is inconformity to the KJV.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The RVR which was translated before the KJV says essentially the same thing. "Procura con diligenica presntarte... So Is the RVR wrong

Yes, the RVR is wrong.

 

[4His_glory]

Yes, the RVR is wrong.

Thank you for answering. Though if find your reply disturbing. Especially since the RVR was translated from the same textual family as the KJV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes, the RVR is wrong.

Why - it matches the TR?

 

[robycop3]

Fellerzz, I think this is "much ado about nothing". The KJV used "study" as it was commonly used in 1600, while later versions used "work diligently, strive", which have the SAME MEANING "study" had then, in that context. The KJV isn't wrong to use 'study' here, but neither is a modern version that says 'work diligently'.

The whole "study" thingie is a KJVO invention to tryta fault newer versions, and is entirely without merit.

 

[4His_glory]

Fellerzz, I think this is "much ado about nothing". The KJV used "study" as it was commonly used in 1600, while later versions used "work diligently, strive", which have the SAME MEANING "study" had then, in that context. The KJV isn't wrong to use 'study' here, but neither is a modern version that says 'work diligently'.

The whole "study" thingie is a KJVO invention to tryta fault newer versions, and is entirely without merit.

True. But in this case a KJVO has a problem with a version that was translated from the same textual family and was actually translated before the KJV. I wonder why the KJV rendering is claimed to be better when this is the case. Seems like an english only bias.

 

[Jerome]

4His_glory, why doesn't the Spanish have sea diligente as the NKJV has be diligent? What's with this procura business? Is procurar a filler word with no meaning? Or did the Spanish translators, in agreement with the OP, find sea diligente insufficiently expressive of the meaning?

 

[Jerome]

Fellerzz, I think this is "much ado about nothing". The KJV used "study" as it was commonly used in 1600, while later versions used "work diligently, strive", which have the SAME MEANING "study" had then, in that context. The KJV isn't wrong to use 'study' here, but neither is a modern version that says 'work diligently'.

Except the MV cited in the OP (NKJV) doesn't even say "work diligently".

 

[4His_glory]

4His_glory, why doesn't the Spanish have sea diligente as the NKJV has be diligent? What's with this procura business? Is procurar a filler word with no meaning? Or did the Spanish translators, in agreement with the OP, find sea diligente insufficiently expressive of the meaning?

I think that sea diligente would be fine as well. I am not sure why procurar was chosen other than it stress more emphatically the idea. In a sense it is a double emphasis since procurar already has the idea of doing something with diligence. In any case the RVR seems to read more like the NKJV and other MVs that stress the idea of diligently presenting oneself to be God-approved.

 

[Askjo]

I see the SFIC ignored my question. He and Askjoe claim the NKJV is inaccurate to translate the passage "Be diligent to present yourself..." The RVR which was translated before the KJV says essentially the same thing. "Procura con diligenica presntarte... So Is the RVR wrong?

Why not RVG? I agree with SFIC saying RVR is wrong.

 

[4His_glory]

Why not RVG? I agree with SFIC saying RVR is wrong.

Why say its wrong if its based from the same textual family as the KJV?

The I think I explained why I will not except the Gomez Bible. For more info on it see this.

 

[Salamander]

No; I think you have misunderstood my post if you ask that question. Timothy was admonished to "study" (in the sense of 'be diligent') all the things that Paul verbally taught him about doctrine and the office of pastor, which was predominately through Paul's verbal instruction. Paul's spoken theological instruction and explanation of pastorial duties were the foremost things in which Timothy needed to be diligent. You are implying that Timothy should first study (in the sense of reading, reflecting, or reseaching) the scriptures. But Timothy would have had precious little Christian writings at that time to study.

I rather believe that his knowledge from study of the word of God then available is foremost in what his diligence should be, else paul was speaking as only a man without Timothy having references to compare with what he said.

You're misrepresenting the word "study" by your limited definition.

Study requires diligence to be effective.

For Timothy to affect those he pastored, he must first study to be able to relate specifically to their needs. Those needs are laid out in front of us that he would have to deal with to establish doctrine and do away with fables and old wives tales.

The "little precious writings" is a fallacious arguement. Timothy had living oracles to follow by study.

You might consider our use of the word "understudy" in regard to Timothy following those who are actually godly examples for him.

Seems I remember Timothy had a very godly grandmother/ Lois, and his mother/ Eunice, to also positively affect him in his ministry.


My simple understanding of the word "study" goes far beyond what you attempt to use as an arguement against the KJB use of the word.

I'll try my best to be diligent in my studies of the Bible!:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

I don't think we should accept any modern renderings, including those done in the 17th century. Lets go back to REAL English and if you can't get it, buy a dictionary.


"Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe."

Um, that's not exactly English, although it is a place from which English is derived.

Be honest and call it Anglo-Saxon.

 

[Salamander]

It is clear from the website, and from the passage in question in this thread, that this revision was not an attempt to bring a Spainsh translation into conformity to the TR, but the KJV.

:laugh: Anything that conforms to the TR is bound to conform to the KJB!

Maybe one of our Spanish experts can tell us if estudia has the same idea of hard work and diligent application that study had in 1611. By the way, I have no problem with the KJV rendering here. Study means more, even today, than opening a book and cramming in facts.

Thank you for revealing, by accident I'm sure, that today's study lacks diligence and explains why we have so many illiterate HS graduates.:tear: