Why would that be a "big question"?
-
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!
KVJ Is Not Literal, but Functional Equivalent
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
Due to Formal translations being superior and preferred for serious bible studies.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Agreed, as I would suggest one using your Niv for casually reading, to read it thru, and then once getting into it for serious studying, switch out to either Nkjv or the Nas!
Thumbs down on your post. Studying may be casual for you, not for me and others.
the Niv is best suited to be used for casual reading thru the Bible, as in just trying to get an overall look, but when one gets to actually breaking it down, best to use versions like nas and Nkjv!
Reading the funny pages can be called casual reading. Using that term for reading the Bible is sacrilegious. What is it? 1)Are you being deliberately provocative 2) you don't know the meaning of words 3) you have a shallow view of God's Word
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't go that far.
My definition of one casually reading thru the scriptures would be when we read thru say the entire Gospel of Mark, but when we start tearing into say chapter one and really start to zero in on details, that is when we should use a formal version.
You would agree that a more formal version is superior to a more functional one when engaged in really getting into the nuts and bolts of the scriptures, correct?
Most Christians understand a difference between reading and studying, but I do not think there are really any meanings of the adjective casual that fit as a description for Bible reading. For examples:
- happening by chance; fortuitous
- without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing
- seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned
- without emotional intimacy or commitment
- occurring without regularity
How about reading to get the overall picture, and then zeroing in on the particular aspects?
How about the 4 instances where the Kjv calls the Holy Spirit an "it"
This is an intriguing question. I have not checked this extensively, but here is my understanding. The grammatical gender for Greek word pneuma is neuter. A pronoun matching pneuma then would also be grammatically neuter (it, itself). I think there are exceptions and this is not always consistently translated by "he" or "it". Maybe someone who has studied this more could tell us. However, this is not a particularly KJV issue, in that other Bible translations often do the same. Check John 1:32 in ASV, CEB, ESV, RSV, et al. Some avoid the issue altogether by leaving out the pronoun (at least in that verse).
The point we are trying to express is that you should never treat the reading and studying of a translation as a trite exercise. It is insulting as well as untrue.
As @rlvaughn as pointed out with John 1:32, this is not an embellishment. The KJV is actually more "formal" than others such as the NASB by using "it". The greek form is gender neuter which is conveyed by the KJV and ESV. However, based on the context of Scripture and how God has revealed himself, this is actually less accurate. We do not identify sin as "she" in the Bible and therefore we should not let the neuter require us to say "it".
In the instance of πνεύμα, if referring to The Holy Spirit, "he" is a better option to convey his "personhood", despite being a more functional interpretive choice.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
So the functional way to translate in this case as he would be much better then the more literal one as an it?
Jesus referred to the Spirit as being He though, and God when addressing His own very personhood always gives that to us in the masculine expression.