Featured When is revision necessary?

You and yours may continue to use the word brethren with understanding that it is an exclusive term. But in many regions and age groups within English speaking countries (including the UK) it has the connotation of just men.

 

That's old. I have used it several times on the BB dating back a few years.

 

Verse 6: "Such purity characterizes the people who seek his favor, Jacob's descendants, who pray to him." (NET)
"Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, God of Jacob." (NIV)

I believe I have answered your concerns by simply citing Scripture in context above.

 

The problem with people who don't like literal translations is they want to change the message of the Bible.

You won't answer my question of why the NIV prior to 2011 just says brothers. I explained why it matters more than once, but maybe it's above your head.

"Phebe our sister, which is a servant.": Your quoted song and dance (which is a nice way of saying your b......) to defend the translation of adelphos to sister is mocked and undercut by the very verse you refer to because it uses adelphe for sister.

Rippon, do you think there's a masculine form of "sister", which still means sister? You can't use a masculine form of sister because then it no longer means sister. Servant means servant, regardless gender. So, your analogy with servant is inapplicable.

If what you quoted is accurate, that Paul uses a masculine form of servant, then I conclude that the gender of servant in the verse in question has nothing to do with the sex of Phebe. Paul is referring to a position without regard to Phebe. Else, can you explain why Paul didn't use a feminine of servant, if such a thing was available and applicable?

 

NIV: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchraea."

Get it straight. It's adelphen, not adelphe.

 

Got it, it says sister, not brother.

 

I can remember typing an article on a type writer. If changes to improve it occurred to me (or were brought to my attention) I would be reluctant to type the whole thing over. But now with computers, we can delete, added, or change to our hearts content. Rather than less updates or revisions, we are going to see more.

I think it would be rather easy to radically improve all English translations by being as consistent as possible in translating each source language word meaning into one English word or phrase. Next, we could eliminate or limit to the extent possible, overlap where the same English word or phrase is used to translate different source language words. When the translations do this (for example use Hell for both Hades and Gehenna) we obliterate the distinction drawn in the inspired text.

Since the modern translations can be radically improved, why not do it? Why tolerate a lack of transparency and correspondence. Why hide the inspired word? Why not make full use of the digital revolution?

 

Most would agree, revision is needed to correct mistakes. The problem is one person's mistake is another person's truth.

My view is all modern translations and the KJV are full of mistakes and need revision to improve correspondence and transparency.

Any bible based on the TR needs to be revised according to the MT. Thus the NKJV needs revision.

Monogenes means one of a kind, not begotten. Any bible translating monogenes as begotten needs revision. Thus the NASB needs revision.

We can find mistake after mistake in the NIV and ESV, , thus they both need revision.

Why is it that none of them translate the same source word meaning into one English word or phrase consistently. Examples of proper translation can be found, so the process is not beyond the translators ability in the digital age.

For the umpteenth time, every translation translates a given word differently in different places because no one English word has exactly the same meaning. Lets say a Greek word means destroy or render powerless. By looking at the context, we could use one English word or phrase to convey "destroy" when the context indicates that is the meaning intended, and we could use "rendered powerless" when the context indicates that is the intended meaning. So we have one Greek word with two meanings, and we have two English words or phrases to convey those two meanings.

In the case of the Greek word meaning selfish ambition, we have the same translation render it 3or 4 different ways, when the context pointed to the same meaning. Now "selfish ambition" may not be the best rendering, perhaps selfishness better captures the idea of someone pushing their own agenda rather than Christ's agenda. But there is no need to turn one meaning into several meanings such as rivalry or hostility or strife.

 

I don't think you understand the difference between a mistake and a difference of judgement. Everyone agrees that mistakes should be fixed. Your argument is that every Bible should be changed to agree with you.

What if the word means to cause strife through selfish ambition?

 

You haven't.