O....K....A....Y.Welcome back brother.
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!
O....K....A....Y.Welcome back brother.
Both would be giving to us the gist of what God meant!1 Peter 4:16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. [NIV]
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. [ESV]
Wow, ESV, you are C-L-U-N-K-Y ! !
ESV seems to be saying, "In the name of Christianity, I glorify you, oh Lord!"
Here's the NKJV for comparison's purposes.
16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. [NKJV]
I can visualize a promo for a Bible translation based on your post : "This fine version will give you the very gist of what God is saying."Both would be giving to us the gist of what God meant!
I can visualize a promo for a Bible translation based on your post : "This fine version will give you the very gist of what God is saying."
You are right!!!You forgot the three exclamation points!!!
yes, and would be called the "Holy Ghost Agenda Bible"I can visualize a promo for a Bible translation based on your post : "This fine version will give you the very gist of what God is saying."
And the ESV is more correct in this matter. There is no need in the context to change it to no restrictions because the second half of the verse clarifies.Esther 1:8
ESV : And drinking was according to this edict: 'There is no compulsion.'
= "The king will not force you to drink"
NIV : By the king's command each guest was allowed to drink with no restrictions
= "The king will allow you to drink with no restrictions"
And the ESV is more correct in this matter. There is no need in the context to change it to no restrictions because the second half of the verse clarifies.
Again, read the rest of the verse.I'm not so sure. Kings are known for giving edicts and creating rules. The ESV simply says the king will not compel you to drink. The NIV says the guests are allowed to decide as there are no restrictions.
Which translation better conveys the idea that the king's authority has been minimized?
Again, read the rest of the verse.
But what does the actual Hebrew say?Read the whole chapter. In later verses the king compelled Queen Vashti to come to his banquet. He was drunk and wanted to show off his trophy wife. She refused to obey his command. He was angry and decreed that she would never be allowed in his presence again. The NIV says the king was going to allow the guests to decide what, if anything, they were going to drink. This contrasts nicely with his command that his queen visit his banquet. He wasn't giving her a choice. She was under compulsion.
But what does the actual Hebrew say?
I guess here is my problem with this entire thread. You are comparing two translations that have very different translation philosophies. You say the NIV beats the ESV and you like their "take on it better." Here's the problem I have on that. If I wanted someone's take, I would buy a commentary. I don't want a commentary. I want as close to the original as it can be. Does that mean we have to work out some sayings and cultural ideas? YES! But I also believe it was written that way for a reason.Comment: Obviously a person can say that "all things are weary" so NIV beats ESV that says "man cannot utter it."
"ear filled with hearing" is a clumsy phrase, sounds like the KJV. I like the NIV's take on it better.