Bible Translation NLT, Tynsdale 2004 Acts 2:38-40

[Tazman]

Tyndale "Philosophy & Methodology":

"Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning):
This philosophy is open to "clarify" the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches."

Verse 38 Reads:

38 Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to show that you are forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I found this interpretation in the New Living Translation "Pocket" style bible, published 2004. However, the 1996 publication does not have "to show"

Why the sudden change? Does any other translation have this?

 

[DQuixote]

The 2004 NLT reads as follows:

38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Who copyrighted the "pocket" version?

 

[Claudia_T]

38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

thats King James Version

 

[Rufus_1611]

Tyndale "Philosophy & Methodology":

"Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning):
This philosophy is open to "clarify" the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches."

Verse 38 Reads:

38 Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to show that you are forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I found this interpretation in the New Living Translation "Pocket" style bible, published 2004. However, the 1996 publication does not have "to show"

Why the sudden change? Does any other translation have this?

"That you are forgiveness of your sins"? That's not even good English much less a good translation.

 

[Tazman]

The 2004 NLT reads as follows:

38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Who copyrighted the "pocket" version?

Are you sure you have the 2004 and not the 1996?

This is some of the info inside the preface:

tyndale Inc.
www.tyndale.com
1996, 2004 2nd edition
wycliff bible translator
2025 vision....

I have not found any online version that reads "to show" in the NLT, but only the 2004 hard copy.

 

[Tazman]

"That you are forgiveness of your sins"? That's not even good English much less a good translation.

sorry about the grammer, I tried to correct it after the post, but missed out.

But this is the only version I read that actually translated Acts 2:38 that way.

NLT, 2004 2nd edition, the 1996 does not have it. I'm just wondering why.

 

[Jerome]

Since the English language itself has not changed much in eight years, it is disturbing that so many changes were necessary in the 2004 revision. From the publisher's explanations here and here, it seems that the 1996 product could be characterized as a "first draft."

The replacement of the vague "for" with the "to show that you are" construction seems intended to address the misuse of this verse by the Church of Christ (and other promoters of baptism-based salvation).

 

[tragic_pizza]

Not sure that the translators needed to make a commentary out of a translated word, though.

 

[Tazman]

Since the English language itself has not changed much in eight years, it is disturbing that so many changes were necessary in the 2004 revision. From the publisher's explanations here and here, it seems that the 1996 product could be characterized as a "first draft."

The replacement of the vague "for" with the "to show that you are" construction seems intended to address the misuse of this verse by the Church of Christ (and other promoters of baptism-based salvation).

Regardless of the "belief" of what Peter meant, what he said does not include "To show". Are you telling me that all these translaters prior to the 20th centrury just weren't smart enough to figure this out?

How far are you willing to go?

 

[Tazman]

Not sure that the translators needed to make a commentary out of a translated word, though.

I can respect translator who keep their beliefs out of the text and Let the reader come to pure understanding of what the Spirit is saying through the speaker.

There are many who don't agree with the misuses of Romans 10:9 and Rev 3:20, john 3:16 and a ton other scriptures, but wouldn't dare take the steps that this committee has in rendering their own interpretation or commentary as part of scripture to this degree.

This is very foolish.

All this is going to do is open up the door for revision of every scripture that does not "clearly" fit into certain belief systems. These same systems are being question ever now by current members of that system after they have take a clear look at the bible without their commentaries.

True, 15 years from now "new comers" would not know to question such tactics, because it would just seem right, but in fact it's completely off.

Is this not adding to Gods word spoken through his prophets?

 

[DQuixote]

O my -- such a good point! In 15 years what will believers believe if we keep tampering with God's word? People new to the faith in 15 years will read gender neutral bibles that don't mention a multitude of things that have simply been reasoned away by the pitiful mind of man. Oops! pitiful mind of people.

 

[Tazman]

Since the English language itself has not changed much in eight years, it is disturbing that so many changes were necessary in the 2004 revision. From the publisher's explanations here and here, it seems that the 1996 product could be characterized as a "first draft."

The replacement of the vague "for" with the "to show that you are" construction seems intended to address the misuse of this verse by the Church of Christ (and other promoters of baptism-based salvation).

Do you think that tampering with the actual scripture is where your fight should take place?

Have you ever been wrong in your understanding of a passage? Even with the assistance of a "good commentary"?

 

[tinytim]

Regardless of the "belief" of what Peter meant, what he said does not include "To show". Are you telling me that all these translaters prior to the 20th centrury just weren't smart enough to figure this out?

How far are you willing to go?

Check out Wycliffes version:
(WycliffeNT) And Petre seide to hem, Do ye penaunce, and eche of you be baptisid in the name of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of youre synnes; and ye schulen take the yifte of the Hooli Goost.

Why the use of "in to" in place of "for"

 

[Jerome]

Do you think that tampering with the actual scripture is where your fight should take place?

Have you ever been wrong in your understanding of a passage? Even with the assistance of a "good commentary"?

Did I miss something?
What fight?
I had nothing to do with the NLT revision and do not agree with its rendering of the verse.

 

[Tazman]

Did I miss something?
What fight?
I had nothing to do with the NLT revision and do not agree with its rendering of the verse.

It seems to me that you are against Groups who believe baptism differently than you. You are in contention with this belief.

that's fine,

But your response sounded to me like you support the rendering because it speak the truth you believe against others.

My bad.

 

[Tazman]

Check out Wycliffes version:
(WycliffeNT) And Petre seide to hem, Do ye penaunce, and eche of you be baptisid in the name of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of youre synnes; and ye schulen take the yifte of the Hooli Goost.

Why the use of "in to" in place of "for"

To be honest I don't know, but one thing is for sure:

"into" and "for" is NOTHING close to "TO SHOW"

most translations has a symbol next to the verse to read with one or the other. That is integrity!

Nothing close to "To Show"

 

[tinytim]

I agree....

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Tyndale "Philosophy & Methodology":

"Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning):
This philosophy is open to "clarify" the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches."

Verse 38 Reads:

38 Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to show that you are forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I found this interpretation in the New Living Translation "Pocket" style bible, published 2004. However, the 1996 publication does not have "to show"

Why the sudden change? Does any other translation have this?

GE:
It's only the interests of the quasi translators thus served - to say what THEY, WANT, the 'text' to say. It is old plain deception and fraud in scholars' apparal and worst of all, in the name of the Gospel of Christ.
THAT, is "WHY"

And there are MANY other such cases, the two areas where most, being Divine election and free grace, and the Sabbath and resurrection of Jesus.

These are the two aspects of God's Word most repulsive - and reprehensive - to Christianity at large today.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To be honest I don't know, but one thing is for sure:

"into" and "for" is NOTHING close to "TO SHOW"

most translations has a symbol next to the verse to read with one or the other. That is integrity!

Nothing close to "To Show"

GE:
Indeed! Peter says exactly what Jesus says in Mt28 - he admonishes the hearer of the Gospel thereby be baptised "INTO THE NAME" - to be born of the Spirit, that is; and THUS to be baptised, "INTO forgiveness of sins". Tyndale is 100% correct and 100% to his God-led conscience translating. "To show" is the 'translators without fear for the Word of God, having it say what they say. I call it blasphemy.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Peter answers the people who asked him (of all possible objects of appeal) "what WE, shall do" in order to be saved. Now Peter harboured NO different an opinion than Paul on the way of salvation, and what Peter therefore meant with the concept of being baptised, was with Christ to die and be buried and be raised again - a SPIRITUAL, DIVINE-SUBJECT experience, the rebirth or regeneration - from inititiation to beginning to end God acting "to us-ward". Peter meant NO HUMAN first step, no work of any law, but for man to be completely lost in Gog, and to be completely taken up in God and by God through and in Jesus Christ. No water-baptism here, but Christ's death and resurrection being participated in through pure grace!