37818
Well-Known Member
No. Maybe "before" only in the sense of standing "off" or standing "from." As being before the presence of.
-
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!
What are the issues with the NRSV? + Poll for favourite version
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
Romans 12:6 is an example, ESV, "Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;" The words, "let us use them" is added by the translators.
The NASB shows its added words with italics, "Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith;" The words added by the translators, "each of us to exercise them accordingly," in italics.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the example. Honestly, I think the italics are unnecessary. Is it a supplied word? Yes. Is it necessary? Also, yes. If you take that phrase out the sentence ceases to make sense in English.
37818
Well-Known Member
Really? Maybe, ". . . Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; . . ." The KJV does add the words, "let us prophesy."
ἀπὸ can also be used in a temporal sense. As demonstrated by EDNT and BDAG. According to Rev 13:8, when were the names written(or not written) in the Lambs book? γέγραπται (perfect tense) tells us when. It also gives support to take από as temporal. The verb γεγραπται can be used to support rendering από as "before".
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
There appears to be some translation"issues" with the latest Esv revision though!
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
There is only one major one that I am aware of and that is the choice in Genesis 3:16 with the use of "Contrary to" vs. "Shall be toward"
Yes, but that little change brought them big headaches!
Which, while interpretive, may not be incorrect. It has been regularly argued that Eve's desire is against her husband. This is not a sexual desire towards, or a desire to submission. It runs a close parallel to Genesis 4:7 where "sins" desire is towards Able. It seeks to dominate and control Able. It can be argued that Eve's desire towards Adam was also one of control and dominance. This point is stressed in several commentaries including NAC and the WBC.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Interesting, but still wondering why their viewpoint took so long to get to, and while few other translations followed them there!
Most translations will be very cautious if it means they break with the KJV. The KJV still influences many translators, because they know that many lay people view it as the standard....and they would like to sell Bibles to them. Wenham's commentary (WBC) which this idea was published in 1987. He cites Kinder which goes back another 20 years. So this idea of "control" is over 50 years old. My guess is that it may actually goes back 100's of years if someone looks hard enough.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I checked Kinder's commentary. He does not *cite anyone when he says "To love and to cherish’ becomes ‘To desire and to dominate’." So perhaps he is one of the first to argue for this point and seeing the parallel with Gen 4:7....I doubt it, but Kinder does not cite others holding to his conclusion.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
There cannot be that many who support the esv on this issue!
It is probably a minority view in Christianity as a whole, but it still had enough support to be voted in as the ESV reading. It was a footnote long before that. It is also represented in atleast 3 major commentary works, NAC, WBC and TOTC. So it does have significant academic support. But yes, most Bible readers will likely think the KJV, Geneva and other translations are correct.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
It was Susan Foh who came up with that twist on Gen. 3:16.
She was a sort of anti-feminist out of Westminster Seminary in the 1970s:
Susan Foh's Interpretation - The Aquila Report
Foh was one of two women present at the founding of complementarianist outfit CBMW (the other was Dorothy Patterson!)
CBMW • Our History
She was a sort of anti-feminist out of Westminster Seminary in the 1970s:
Susan Foh's Interpretation - The Aquila Report
Foh was one of two women present at the founding of complementarianist outfit CBMW (the other was Dorothy Patterson!)
CBMW • Our History
Last edited:
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I think the controversy was blown way out of proportion.
Exactly. I think given context and usage in the 4:7 passage it is clear that it is not sexual desire for or a desire to submit. Rather, it means they are going to but heads.
The issue is overblown. I was up in arms about it at first too until I studied the issue a little more. I'm fine with the rendition.
Well, Derek Kinder wrote about it in the 60's....so maybe he is the first.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk