Featured Serious Bible study with the NLTse

I know this to some is a relatively small matter.

I have a problem with leaving out the view of God's only "born of the flesh" son (begotten) that some versions do not include.

God does not have "One and Only Son" as some translate the verse.

Believers are the sons of God through adoption. ( as stated in Galatians 4:6 for example)

Christ is the only "natural born" Son of God.

THAT is to me is a huge issue. For one of the key Greek words is basically omitted when the translation work ignore the "only born" aspect of Christ's unique birth.

Just for comparison here are those translations of John 3:16

John 3:16

New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


John 3:16

King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.




John 3:16

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.




John 3:16

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

16 “For God loved the world in this way:[a] He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16

New English Translation (NET)

16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.








Does anyone else not see a problem with some of these versions?

How can one actually trust a version that is providing a "more readable" style and sacrificing accuracy?

Is it possible that it is because it is trendy not to be considered "old school?"

 

"I have a problem with leaving out the view of God's only "born of the flesh" son (begotten) that some versions do not include."

In that case you have a problem with the KJV in other verses where it translates that same Greek word (monogene) as "only son" or "only child." For example Luke 7:12, Luke 9:38

You also must have a problem with the NASB where it does the same, for example in those same two verses.

 

Both are valid ways to express Jesus though!

 

Do you then have a problem with William Tyndale's translation which uses the expression "only sonne"?

The word begotten doesn't convey the sense of the singularity of Christ.

To go with "begotten" is not old-school!

 

Good Point

One would think the same word or phrase would be translated consistently, somethings called concordantly. If the Greek word has more than one meaning, then each meaning should be translated consistently. Thus monogene (one kind) should be translated "one of a kind" everywhere it appears.

When translators sacrifice consistent translation to follow the willy-nilly translation of earlier works (like using the mistranslation begotten because the verse is well memorized) they fail those they are serving, i.e. God and man.

 

No, and no and no. Jesus was expressing one thought, one message, and one idea. To argue that two differing messages are both right is to argue that God is a God of confusion.

Calvinists are constantly trying to make an accommodation with their alternate and opposite readings of scripture, as if God desiring all men, and desiring some men are both valid ways to understand the verse.

 

"Study bile."! "Pick up an dusesomething like..."!

Can you please try to use better grammar and spelling? Just type slower and think things out before sending your messages.

 

In a valuable book called The Making Of The NIV there is a good chapter entitled The One And Only Son by Richard N. Longenecker. Here is his conclusion:

Contemporary Greek usage allows for monogenes to be understood more broadly as an adjective stressing quality,rather than derivation or descent. And John's nuancing of "Son" in his Gospel and letters lends support to such an understanding. We must conclude,therefore,that the translation "only begotten Son," though venerable, fails to capture adequately John's point in his use of monogenes huios (or monogenes theos in John 1:18), particularly because it leaves open the possibility of an etymological emphasis on genes (the idea of generation), because it neglects then the current usage for the word,and because it fails to set the determination of meaning in the context of John's avowedly heighened christological perspective. Rather, we must insist that in Johannine usage monogenes is an adjective connoting quality,which should be translated in a manner signaling primarily uniqueness,and that huios as a christological appellative in John's Gospel and Letters connotes primarily divine nature. so,to be true to John's intent, monogenes huios is best translated into current English as "one and only Son." (p.124)

 

Certainly John 3:16 is a case where the NLT presents a reasonable translation – but it's not the only way it can be translated. Part of serious bible study is comparing versions – and the NLT should be included in the versions that are consulted.

In places were the meaning of a passage is obscure or ambiguous, I've found the NLT makes the decision to clearly and vibrantly communicate the most likely interpretation of the passage.

Recently I've worked with two passages in particular that illustrate this well.
Ecclesiastes 12:1–14 – the NLT opens up the murky Hebrew allegory used by the author.

This Saturday I fill in and teach in our Saturday morning men's study group as we go thorough Isaiah.

Tomorrow's study is Isaiah 58. In many versions the sarcasm is lost and the passages meaning is very difficult to perceive. See how the NLT opens up the meaning when compared to the KJV.

It almost appears that verse 2 contradicts the first verse - a bit confusing!
The NLT clarifies the meaning.

For serious study the NLT is a excellent tool and a worthy translation in the understanding of scripture.

Rob

 

Again, BOTH expressions/renderings are valid and acceptable to use, for there are areas in the original language texts where there is some ambuiguity over which is the clearest/correct way to translate the text into English!

Sometimes, not an exact match word for word, even in most literal versions!

 

Not as literal as say an interlinear, but most would stillsee it being second most literal current version available, next to ole 1901 Asv it came from!

And readability is an important factor, but you MUST sacrifice at times accuracy to original texts to gain that readability!

 

I think the NKJV has a deserved shot at that designation.

Accuracy involves understanding. Understanding is compromised with awkward,cumbersome language. A contextual reading nails the actual meaning of a given text with better clarity than the so-called literal approach.

 

Along with the NKJV I would say that the Darby New Testament ranks as being more literal than the 1901 ASV. Its English is terrible, though its textual basis is superior to that of the NKJV.

 

From what i have read, many see the Nkjv/1977 Nasb as being most literal versions today in the market of a "readable" edition

 

Well,a wooden read is not that readable. Besides, what's all the fuss about "literal versions" anyway? Accurate versions are a better choice.