Too bad that many would support my fav the Nasb, and yours the NKJV, over his Niv!I don't know that at all. You have told me that the translators know much more than I do, and that neither you nor I are worthy to tie their shoelaces. The first part is undoubtedly right, but the second part sounds rather like man-worship. If we are not worthy to tie their shoe-laces then we are certainly not worthy to criticize their translations. Therefore we are back in the position of the Middle Ages when no one could criticize the Vulgate, and the mods should close the forum.
I can't give you the missing Greek words for the very good reason that they are missing. In every manuscript.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Exercise Common Sense
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Think that we would all be surprised on how mnay words we thought were in the original texts, and yet were really not!
I would support both the NASB and the NKJV over the NIV. Any NIV.
Just the sheer number? Do believe there were more or less than people think?
Are you now becoming a KJVO?
You do posit some wacky ideas.
The word their is often used to refer to an individual.
Geoff Pullum submits the following as an example of the nonsense of using his, which is related to your old-school grammar approach.
"Is it your brother or sister who can hold his breath for four minutes?
Do you honestly think that his is acceptable in that sentence?
Of course not --their is much more natural.
No, not at all. You are being puerile.
Just remind me, which book of the Bible is that sentence in?
This one is in the NIV 2011. John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics). If you think that's acceptable English, then I have no more to say; carry on, brother, and leave me to my pedantry.
According to Webster it is correct English. Emily Dickinson back in 1881 used they as a singular. Webster compared the evolution of "they" to "you". Once upon a time "you" was used only in the plural sense, but changed into a word that can be , and very often used as the singular now-- which no one complains about. It is highly appropriate to use "they" as a singular in situation were the gender of the person is not specidlfied or it is unimportant. This is what the NIV did in that verse.Just remind me, which book of the Bible is that sentence in?
This one is in the NIV 2011. John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics). If you think that's acceptable English, then I have no more to say; carry on, brother, and leave me to my pedantry.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
"If a person is born of a gloomy temper...they cannot help it." Chesterfield (1694-1773)
"A person can't help their birth." Thackery, 1848 in Vanity Fair.
"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me, as if I were their well-acquainted friend." Shakespeare
"And ever one to rest themselves betake." Shakespeare
"The OED and Jespersen (1914) reveal, for example, that right from the time of the introduction of the indefinite pronouns into the language in their present form in the Late Middle English period, the option involving they has been in common use." (Katie Wales,1996)
"A person can't help their birth." Thackery, 1848 in Vanity Fair.
"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me, as if I were their well-acquainted friend." Shakespeare
"And ever one to rest themselves betake." Shakespeare
"The OED and Jespersen (1914) reveal, for example, that right from the time of the introduction of the indefinite pronouns into the language in their present form in the Late Middle English period, the option involving they has been in common use." (Katie Wales,1996)
"...the claim that it is ungrammatical begins to look utterly unsustainable to us here at Language Log Plaza. The use of they isn't ungrammatical, it isn't a mistake, it's a feature of ordinary English syntax that for some reason attracts the ire of particularly puristic pussillanimous pontificators, and we don't buy what they're selling." Geoffry K. Pullum, Jan. 5,2006
Exactly right. I'm not buying a 2011 NIV.
We would be in agreement on that, and would choose the 1984 Niv over the 2011 edition also...I would support both the NASB and the NKJV over the NIV. Any NIV.
Less, as many still would thin the version translated every word, but many of them were added into the Englsih translation
Just stick with your Nkjv or Nasb!Exactly right. I'm not buying a 2011 NIV.
You are confused. No translation translates every single word.
Many times there are no direct equivalents between the original language and English. You don't know that by now?
That applies to thousands of other languages too.
I do know that, my point was that manywould be surprised how words were added in English transaltion in order to try to give a better understanding of what was being discussed!
I would be surprised that many would be surprised. It's common knowledge.
Not to the KJVO group!
I do enjoy the above!
The following was submitted to the N.Y.T. by C. Badendck in 1985 to illustrate the futility of the position that folks like M.M. hold.
"The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty-hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day."
Are you assuming I like the ESV?