It's on my to-do list.If you say so but then Martin why haven't you published your own MMV Bible in Modern English? Or maybe you have.
Just kidin'
HankD
-
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!
Some Singular Readings In The NIV...
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
"But is it right to change the subject from 'you' to 'we,' to change the mood from passive/middle to active, to change the verb from 'restrict' to 'withhold'? I say no, but others will have their own views."No doubt the NIV is in easier English, but is it an accurate translation? Is it actually translating what the Greek says?
2 Cor. 6:12, NKJV. 'You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.'
2 Cor. 6:12, NASB. 'You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.'
The subject of the sentence is 'you' not 'we.' The Greek verb stenorchoreo does not mean 'withhold' but 'restrict.' Interestingly, splanchna does actually mean 'bowels' or 'entrails' and the Greek is 'in us' rather than 'by us' (and certainly not 'from you'), so in its way the KJV is the most accurate translation. Just sayin'.
So just how much are we entitled to muck about with the God-breathed text? 'Bowels' is no longer used to portray the affections, so a different word there is allowable, and the Greek word en has many more meanings than only 'in.' But is it right to change the subject from 'you' to 'we,' to change the mood from passive/middle to active, to change the verb from 'restrict' to 'withhold'? I say no, but others will have their own views.
Good catch. Yeah, that it little much. The nearest nominative seems to be "Κορίνθιοι" (Corithians)v.11. So a plural "you" is the best choice here. "We" is huge stretch. Since the nearest "us" or "we"(ἡμῖν) to the verb is an indirect object. The second closet "us"/ "we" is possessive and not a subject either. No reason I see to make "We" the subject. Actually changed the meaning of the verse there. However, I still think the new NIV is an overall improvement of the previous edition.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
The above is a puzzling statement. All translations are equivalencies --otherwise they wouldn't be translations at all.
Toning down equivalency is absurd.
Certainly.
ISV : We have not cut you off, but you have cut off your own feelings toward us.
CSB, and Mounce copied exactly how the NIV translated this verse:
We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
Restrain and restrict mean to hold back i.e. withhhold. Why quibble?
That is your constant Van-like refrain and it is offensive as well as utterly false. You need to knock it off.
The KJV was not written in Jacobean English. It was largely written in the style of English almost 80 years before --in the reign of Henry the 8th.
It was made to deliberately sound archaic --it was not written in the current language of the early 17th century.
The way in which 2 Cor. 6:12 was translated in the KJV has to be a fine example of ugly English.
Yes IMO it is conveying the meaning of the original language text. As alluded to in another post, this is the difference between dynamic and formal equivalency.No doubt the NIV is in easier English, but is it an accurate translation? Is it actually translating what the Greek says?
2 Cor. 6:12, NKJV. 'You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.'
2 Cor. 6:12, NASB. 'You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections.'
The subject of the sentence is 'you' not 'we.' The Greek verb stenorchoreo does not mean 'withhold' but 'restrict.' Interestingly, splanchna does actually mean 'bowels' or 'entrails' and the Greek is 'in us' rather than 'by us' (and certainly not 'from you'), so in its way the KJV is the most accurate translation. Just sayin'.
So just how much are we entitled to muck about with the God-breathed text? 'Bowels' is no longer used to portray the affections, so a different word there is allowable, and the Greek word en has many more meanings than only 'in.' But is it right to change the subject from 'you' to 'we,' to change the mood from passive/middle to active, to change the verb from 'restrict' to 'withhold'? I say no, but others will have their own views.
The NIV uses dynamic equivalence (DE) in many cases. DE attempts to convey the THOUGHT expressed in the source text which in a strict literal sense might or would be difficult. In the case of 2 Corinthians 6:12 The NIV does the job of capturing the thought better IMO than the KJV, NKJV or NASB.
HankD
"Restrain and restrict mean to hold back i.e. withhhold. Why quibble?"
Well, it is an issue of quantity. To "withhold" implies complete absence of affection. To "restrict" or "restrain" would still allow for a limited amount of affection. Certainly not a major issue, but does imply difference of quantity.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
The majority opinion that the KJV was written in beautiful English came about 150 years after its publication.
Does the following strike you as eloquent and accurate?
"The noise therof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (Job 36:33)
Does the following strike you as eloquent and accurate?
"The noise therof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (Job 36:33)
Last edited:
Yes. But, I was once hard core KJVO.
Job 36:33 His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.
HankD
No, though it was published in 1611 the language was from an earlier period -- even some verbal endings were from the late Middle Ages.
Holding back --restricting, restraining, confining, limiting. The English language has an abundance of synonyms.
Hank, you are not making an objective judgement. The KJV's translation of Job 36:33 is neither eloquent or accurate.
Your former attachments have tainted your view.
"The koine Greek of the New Testament is the 'everyday' Greek language of working people rather than of self-conscious literary scholars and poets. The King James translators were not aware of this fact. Their location in history denied them access to this knowledge. The result has important implications for the tone and style of those passages in the King James Bible that translate this form of Greek. The language of the workplace and the market is thus subtly changed into the high cadences of the palaces of Westminster and the high tables of Oxford and Cambridge. Many readers of the King James Bible often comment on its elegance and excellent style --yet the considerations we have just set out mean that, on occasion, the style and elegance will be those of the translators, rather than those of the passages they translated." (In The Beginning by Alister Mcgrath --pgs 238-239)
Objective or not, tainted or not it is my opinion.
Are you denying that in the Greek the subject of the sentence is 'you'? Neither Mounce nor anyone else can do anything about that.
To restrict or restrain is absolutely not the same as to withhold, as a moment's thought will tell you.
You'll just have to get used to it, I'm afraid.
This is a misunderstanding both of the KJV and of the knowledge of the translators. No one who has been taught Classical Greek (as the translators all were) can fail to be aware that Koine Greek is significantly different. It has the same relationship to Classical Attic Greek that Shakespearian English has to modern English.
The KJV writers brought certain archaisms into the text; specifically the use of 'thee' and 'ye' etc. which you scarcely find in Shakespeare. They did this, not for the sake of 'elegance' but so that the reader would be able to distinguish 2nd Person Singular from 2nd Person Plural, something that's really important but which the modern translations have not really sorted out.
The KJV is 'elegant' because it was a fine translation in its time. I say this as someone who does not use it.