New Living Translation

[37818]

So, the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and MLV translated it wrong.

No.

 

[37818]

Yes because 1 John period is not in most Greek manuscripts. Going by your logic 1 John is not scripture. My point is that it gives a misleading inpression.

1 John 5:7 is found in latin manuscripts and is also quoted by some of the Church fathers.

No. 1st John is holy scripture. It is only the additional words ". . . in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, . . . " which should not be regarded as holy scripture.

 

[MartyF]

No.

So, their translation of the greek word into desire instead of earnestly desire was also good?

 

[37818]

So, their translation of the greek word into desire instead of earnestly desire was also good?

Yes. The question then would be why not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, everyone knows all that stuff. What I am asking for is a minimum of interpretation.

Does not bode well for us when the top 2 selling versions are the 2011 Niv and the Nlt!

 

[MinixJT]

Does not bode well for us when the top 2 selling versions are the 2011 Niv and the Nlt!

This was my thoughts. I fail to see how those translations would add much to one trying to faithfully study God's Word. Not surprising however, given how biblical/doctrinal illiterate the typical American christian is sadly.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I like Formal equivalence or Gender Inclusive translations.

There you have it from four years ago. MM likes inclusive translations.

He seems to think that formal equivalence is the same thing as inclusive translations.

 

[rsr]

Zombie thread closed.