Gods Word Translation

[Salty]

From the link: GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) accurately translates the meaning of the original texts into clear, everyday language. Readable and reliable, GW is living, active, and life-changing.

Gods Word Trans

Thoughts?

 

[JonC]

Every translation has, by necessity, a certain amount of interpretation. This has more than I am comfortable with.

 

[Yeshua1]

Every translation has, by necessity, a certain amount of interpretation. This has more than I am comfortable with.

Ishn't this the ole Bible for Modern man updated for today?

 

[Rippon]

Isn't this the ole Bible for Modern man updated for today?

You meant Good News For Modern Man. No GWT is not all connected with the former. Don't you look anything up for yourself? Do you continually have to ask questions when Google could help you out?

 

[Yeshua1]

You meant Good News For Modern Man. No GWT is not all connected with the former. Don't you look anything up for yourself? Do you continually have to ask questions when Google could help you out?

Could do that, but find that many here who post seem to know more about these areas than the Google writers!

 

[clark thompson]

I like GWT it is clear and understandible. It is a good thought for thought translation.

 

[makahiya117]

From the link: GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) accurately translates the meaning of the original texts into clear, everyday language. Readable and reliable, GW is living, active, and life-changing.

Gods Word Trans

Thoughts?

You cannot honestly state " GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) accurately translates
the meaning of the original texts into clear, everyday language. "

There are no original manuscripts.

KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves
to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

 

[sdonahue1]

GW is one of the few that correctly translates John 3:16

 

[Yeshua1]

GW is one of the few that correctly translates John 3:16

too bad that it does not do justice to the rest of the Bible though!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Is it just me, or does this rendering rub any of you the wrong way as well?

Philippians 2, GWT
7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant,
by becoming like other humans,
by having a human appearance. [Emphasis added]​

'Scuze me ... "other humans"???

 

[Mexdeaf]

Is it just me, or does this rendering rub any of you the wrong way as well?

Philippians 2, GWT
7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant,
by becoming like other humans,
by having a human appearance. [Emphasis added]​

'Scuze me ... "other humans"???

Pretty much what the Greek says:

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] MacArthur adds that homoioma
refers to that which is made to be like something else, not just in appearance (cf. Php 2:7) but in reality. Jesus was not a clone, a disguised alien, or merely some reasonable facsimile of a man. He became exactly like all other human beings, having all the attributes of humanity, a genuine man among men. (MacArthur, J. Philippians. Chicago: Moody Press)
[/FONT]

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Pretty much what the Greek says:

No, not really. The Thayer's definition states that homoioma means "that which has been made after the likeness of something; a figure, image, likeness, representation; likeness, i.e., resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity [emphasis added]." It is a narrow but extremely important distinction, and renders MacArthur's statement (as you quoted) very wrong in claiming that Jesus was "in reality" exactly a man, because He was not. He was a sinless man, and such had never before existed, even Adam who was created sinless but by disobedience introduced sin into his nature and also into the nature of all men. Jesus was truly a "likeness" and not an exact copy, the only difference, but a highly significant one that set Him apart from all other men, being His sinlessness. He was fully Man, fully God, but the kind of man he was had never before been seen, nor has such a man existed since. He was actually a better man, though still human and therefore able to take upon Himself the punishment of sin for the whole world.

 

[Mexdeaf]

No, not really. The Thayer's definition states that homoioma means "that which has been made after the likeness of something; a figure, image, likeness, representation; likeness, i.e., resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity [emphasis added]." It is a narrow but extremely important distinction, and renders MacArthur's statement (as you quoted) very wrong in claiming that Jesus was "in reality" exactly a man, because He was not. He was a sinless man, and such had never before existed, even Adam who was created sinless but by disobedience introduced sin into his nature and also into the nature of all men. Jesus was truly a "likeness" and not an exact copy, the only difference, but a highly significant one that set Him apart from all other men, being His sinlessness. He was fully Man, fully God, but the kind of man he was had never before been seen, nor has such a man existed since. He was actually a better man, though still human and therefore able to take upon Himself the punishment of sin for the whole world.

I'm no Greek expert, so I'll bow out.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, not really. The Thayer's definition states that homoioma means "that which has been made after the likeness of something; a figure, image, likeness, representation; likeness, i.e., resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity [emphasis added]." It is a narrow but extremely important distinction, and renders MacArthur's statement (as you quoted) very wrong in claiming that Jesus was "in reality" exactly a man, because He was not. He was a sinless man, and such had never before existed, even Adam who was created sinless but by disobedience introduced sin into his nature and also into the nature of all men. Jesus was truly a "likeness" and not an exact copy, the only difference, but a highly significant one that set Him apart from all other men, being His sinlessness. He was fully Man, fully God, but the kind of man he was had never before been seen, nor has such a man existed since. He was actually a better man, though still human and therefore able to take upon Himself the punishment of sin for the whole world.

He was born into the "likeness" not the 'sameness" of human beings, as he was the Second Adam, as He was human without any sin nature inherit withhim like in all of us!

 

[Eliyahu]

If I find nothing on Acts 8:37, I call it dummy translation, because Eunuch asked about the eligibility for Baptism,then Philip mentioned the condition, then Eunuch confessed his faith. Then both went into the water. Without 8:37 all translations make both Philip & Eunuch dumbs.

This verse, I am sure, was omitted because it contradicts Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration.
Acts 8:36-40 rejects Baptism by sprinkling as well.
Infant Baptism has been a tool for Satan to bring the billions of unbelievers into the churches.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If I find nothing on Acts 8:37, I call it dummy translation, because Eunuch asked about the eligibility for Baptism,then Philip mentioned the condition, then Eunuch confessed his faith. Then both went into the water. Without 8:37 all translations make both Philip & Eunuch dumbs.

This verse, I am sure, was omitted because it contradicts Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration.
Acts 8:36-40 rejects Baptism by sprinkling as well.
Infant Baptism has been a tool for Satan to bring the billions of unbelievers into the churches.

<sniff, sniff> Yup, I was sure I smelled baloney someplace- sure enough it was here.

Plenty of people who used only the KJV taught baptismal regeneration.

 

[SolaSaint]

You cannot honestly state " GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) accurately translates
the meaning of the original texts into clear, everyday language. "

There are no original manuscripts.

KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves
to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

You beat me to it. Just which original texts are they referring to? LOL

 

[Eliyahu]

If I find nothing on Acts 8:37, I call it dummy translation, because Eunuch asked about the eligibility for Baptism,then Philip mentioned the condition, then Eunuch confessed his faith. Then both went into the water. Without 8:37 all translations make both Philip & Eunuch dumbs.

This verse, I am sure, was omitted because it contradicts Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration.
Acts 8:36-40 rejects Baptism by sprinkling as well.
Infant Baptism has been a tool for Satan to bring the billions of unbelievers into the churches.

It is true.

But without Acts 8:37, the defense of Infant Baptism is much easier.

 

[Eliyahu]

<sniff, sniff> Yup, I was sure I smelled baloney someplace- sure enough it was here.

Plenty of people who used only the KJV taught baptismal regeneration.

It is true.

But without Acts 8:37, the defense of Infant Baptism is much easier.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is true.

But without Acts 8:37, the defense of Infant Baptism is much easier.

How so? There are plenty of other verses to refute it.

That's like saying you cannot support the doctrine of the Trinity without 1 John 5:7,8.

If one cannot defend their faith with most modern day translations, then the problem is not with the translation, but rather with the user.