I think we all struggle with comprehension problems and communication issues on such a medium as this.
-
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!
Top Three Bible translations
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
- Status
This is not specifically about the NIV. It's regarding footnote alternatives in various translations, and why they aren't in the text itself.
Hey, you didn't capitalize 'yourself' -- I thought you were initiating a new enterprise in which all pronouns
referring to me should begin with a capital letter as you identified me as 'Him.'
Been awhile since English Grammar class.
No. But it doesn't actually matter what I personally think. A taboo word is what society thinks is offensive, not one individual. However, some might feel the phrase takes the Lord's name in vain.
Evidently the Holy Spirit and Apostle Paul didn't though!
Yes, I understand what you mean about a socially taboo word, but on the other hand there is a sense in which it does matter what you think; that is, offense is in "the eye of the beholder." Anybody can choose to be offended about anything. Ultimately, I was asking your personal opinion on the phrase.
As for me, I have never noticed "God forbid" to be generally offensive in either churches or social settings.
To me its another way of saying "may it never be"
The original Greek does not say "God forbid," but "May it not be."
God forbid would then be seen as being a heavier emphasis!
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Ok, now you are confusing me. On many occasions you trumpet word for word literal as possible and here you abandon that?
nope, just saying that God forbid to me would be taking the original term and giving it a greater emphasis....
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Greater than what it actually says though?
Yep, made Rip-2 run strangely away from dynamic equivalence while Yes-1 ran strangely toward it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I honestly think we have a scenario with a few people not knowing what they are talking about and trying to be experts.Yep, made Rip-2 run strangely away from dynamic equivalence while Yes-1 ran strangely toward it.
I am for mediating translations. Why have a dynamic equivalent inserted when a formally equivalent expression such as "May it never be." is perfectly understandable?Yep, made Rip-2 run strangely away from dynamic equivalence while Yes-1 ran strangely toward it.
So the word "god" is suitable for Christians to use as an adverb to convey a greater or higher degree?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
In my 14 year history on the BB I have always had the same stance regarding it --that it is an offensive term, and that it is an unnecessary dynamic equivalent.Yep, made Rip-2 run strangely away from dynamic equivalence while Yes-1 ran strangely toward it.
I get that. But the question with taking the Lord's name in vain is not whether it is offensive to humans or not, but does it use the name of God in a way that is not needed.
I don't think you mean as a adverb.
- Status