he prefers the more accurate wooden style!Well what do you know? MM likes your awkward, but accurate language skills.
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!
he prefers the more accurate wooden style!Well what do you know? MM likes your awkward, but accurate language skills.
The 84 translated sarx as "flesh all of the day" you say. What does that mean?The one area where the Niv update seems to have been much better was in Sarx, as 1984 translated it as flesh all of the day!
I think they also used Sarx in more than just translating it always as "flesh"The 84 translated sarx as "flesh all of the day" you say. What does that mean?
The 2011 edition used flesh a lot more than the 84 version did.
Can you speak plainly please?I think they also used Sarx in more than just translating it always as "flesh"
2011 Niv translatorsCan you speak plainly please?
Who are you referencing as they?
Make complete sentences, that makes it less difficult to understand what you are trying to convey.2011 Niv translators
You just stated what I said before!Make complete sentences, that makes it less difficult to understand what you are trying to convey.
The 2011 edition used the word flesh a lot more in translating sarx than the 84 edition. Do you understand?
Accurate is always better than inaccurate.Well what do you know? MM likes your awkward, but accurate language skills.
You don't have a stilted or wooden style. It's littered with poor grammar, and permeated with thought disorder and laziness.he prefers the more accurate wooden style!
But accuracy does not = awkwardness of expression.Accurate is always better than inaccurate.
Far from it. Your "English" has to go through several layers of translation, because you don't have the desire to express yourself clearly.You just stated what I said before!
No English words whatsoever appear in the Greek text. That's why it's Greek.Now for two texts where words are added without informing the reader.
1 Corinthians 14:29, NKJV. 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.'
1 Corinthians 14:29, NIV (1984). 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.'
The point here is that the words 'What is said' appear in no Greek text whatsoever.
Nonsense. The meaning comes across loud and clear.The NIV (1984) translation prevents the reader from interpreting the text properly IMO.
What is your problem? What practical difference is there between He and He Himself? That's right, nothing. Other translation that render it as He, not He Himself : ASV, Darby, ESV, NRSV, ISV, LEB, MEV, Mounce and WEB. Are you also going to charge them being unsatisfactory? Get over it.1 John 2:2, NKJV. 'And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NASB. 'And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world.'
1 John 2:2, NIV(1984). He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.
I might add that the NIV (1984) also fails to translate the word autos, 'He Himself,' and also gives an unsatisfactory rendering of hilasmos, which is properly translated 'propitiation.'
What 'brackets' are you talking about in the NJKV?No English words whatsoever appear in the Greek text. That's why it's Greek.
You obviously think that only words that appear in brackets in the NKJ have no direct equivalents in English.
You're wrong of course. The meaning has to be expressed in many places with no one to one correspondence. That means that many more brackets would need to be added creating an optical nightmare as I have often said.
Some other translations that have what is said : ESV, NRSV, CEB, ISV, Mounce, NET and NLT.
Nonsense. The meaning comes across loud and clear.
The Holy Spirit has added the word autos; it is not for you to decide that He is inserting meaningless words. 'He Himself' suggests here, 'He and no other.' He is the only propitiation for your sins. I couldn't care less how many translations miss it out-- it's there, and for a very important reason.What is your problem? What practical difference is there between He and He Himself? That's right, nothing. Other translation that render it as He, not He Himself : ASV, Darby, ESV, NRSV, ISV, LEB, MEV, Mounce and WEB. Are you also going to charge them being unsatisfactory? Get over it.
'Atoning sacrifice' is not disastrous, but it fails to bring out the proper meaning of hilasmos. There is a belief among some translators that people today do not understand the meaning of 'propitiation.' If so, they should supply a glossary at the back of the Bible, rather than dumb down the Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ has turned away the righteous anger of God through His suffering and death upon the cross. It is more than an atonement; it is a propitiation.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]More nonsense coming from your keystrokes saying hilasmos has to be "properly translated as propitiation."
No, that word is not sacrosanct. It can be expressed in various ways, and all have their limitations.
However, atoning sacrifice is also used in this verse in the ISV, NET, NRSV, MEV and WEB. The last two are favored among your crowd.
Indeed not, but I prefer his accuracy to your inaccuracy.But accuracy does not = awkwardness of expression.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]What 'brackets' are you talking about in the NJKV?
The words 'what is said' are an interpretative gloss and if I want interpretation I will go to a study Bible. The job of the translator is to translate what's there not to decide that the Holy Spirit has accidentally left something out and to correct Him by inserting it.
The Holy Spirit has added the word autos; it is not for you to decide that He is inserting meaningless words. 'He Himself' suggests here, 'He and no other.' He is the only propitiation for your sins. I couldn't care less how many translations miss it out-- it's there, and for a very important reason.
'Atoning sacrifice' is not disastrous, but it fails to bring out the proper meaning of hilasmos. There is a belief among some translators that people today do not understand the meaning of 'propitiation.' If so, they should supply a glossary at the back of the Bible, rather than dumb down the Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ has turned away the righteous anger of God through His suffering and death upon the cross. It is more than an atonement; it is a propitiation.
His viewpoint in regards to the Niv at times seems to borders on NIVO!Indeed not, but I prefer his accuracy to your inaccuracy.
You have a nasty habit of trying to bully and belittle people. It is not becoming in a Christian.
That's stupid thing and sinful thing to say. But that is your style.The job of the translator is to translate what's there not to decide that the Holy Spirit has accidentally left something out and to correct Him by inserting it.
That's true. That word is not absolutely necessary, since most do not understand it anyway.There is a belief among some translators that people today do not understand the meaning of 'propitiation.'
Hey pot!You have a nasty habit of trying to bully and belittle people. It is not becoming in a Christian.
Listen, why can't you try to tell the truth every so often? Is it that hard?Even worse is when the translators decide that the concept of propitiation is not in the Bible, too barbaric, makes God cruel to Jesus, so change it to Expiate as in NEB, or altogether out, as in NLT!