Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Theology (orthodox Christians only) > Theology (orthodox Christians only) > Christian Scriptures > Exposition & Bible Study
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Exposition & Bible Study A new forum for the study and exposition of specific Bible verses.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 2nd January 2012, 10:16 AM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Baptist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 2nd January 2012
Posts: 8
Blessings: 15,560
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
EricGray is on a distinguished road
Book you mentioned

Originally Posted by Unix View Post
plus there's COM (Comprehensive New Testamant, by Clontz), of course it has bias, a lot, but at least it's word-for-word with footnotes about what the Greek actually says, and follows strictly the NA27/UBSGNT4-text.
I looked up the COM on Amazon, but you have me concerned with the bias issue. Can you give me some examples?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #12  
Unread 6th January 2012, 06:35 PM
Unix's Avatar
Studying Greek, NT Hermeneutics, Ptolemy

32 Gender: Male Faith: Anabaptist Country: Europe Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 29th November 2003
Location: Verbum+ ECC,Hermenei,Baker NTC (HK). Accorda Torah: A Modern Commentar,AYBC NT
Posts: 1,993
Blessings: 101,173,500
My Mood Serious
Reps: 191,834,061,793,295,392 (power: 191,834,061,793,307)
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Here's 2 comparison verses between COM and other versions

It says righteous/righteousness when it should say the just/justification or the holy.
Compare for example:
Mt 23:35 (JB): and so you will draw down on yourselves the blood of every holy man that has been shed on earth, from the blood of Abel the Holy to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah* whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
* Possibly Zechariah, the last of the prophets to be killed, according to the Jewish scriptures (2 Ch. 24:20-22).
Mt 23:35 (COM): that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the bloof of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
... notice also the many differences! "on you may come" instead of "you will draw down on yourselves", that is due to that it's more formal equivalent. It's too formal equivalent.

Here You can see the conservative bias:
Ep 2:10 (REB, the version I prefer for Ep generally): There is nothing for anyone to boast of; we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds which God designed for us.
Ep 2:10 (2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, based on the Vulgate, the version I prefer for this verse): For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has prepared and in which we should walk.
Ep 2:10 (1970 NEB second edition): For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to devote ourselves to the good deeds for which God has designed us.
Ep 2:10 (NRSV, liberal bias): For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
Ep 2:10 (1992 GNT): God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which he has already prepared for us to do.
Ep 2:10 (1971 GNB 3rd edition, less bias than in 1992 GNT but more functional equivalent): God is our Maker, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good works, which he has already prepared for us to do.
Ep 2:10 (JB): We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus to live the good life as from the beginning he had meant us to live it.
Ep 2:10 (ASV, reformed conservative bias): For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.
Ep 2:10 (1995 NASU, conservative bias): For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Ep 2:10 (1986 (R)NAB): For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
Ep 2:10 (COM): For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we would walk in them.
Ep 2:10 (HCSB): For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.

Notice the intonation in JB, it strongly interprets!
Notice the highly interpretive word "devote" in NEB.
Notice how (R)NAB and NASU resemble each other, which reveals that (R)NAB is definately a too formal equivalent version for Ep!
Notice how similar the beginning of the verse is in 1992 GNT and NRSV, that reveals that GNT is much more liberal than 1971 GNB 3rd edition. "to be our way of life" in NRSV is also a liberal slant
Conclusion: CPDV is best for this verse, because it does a mild interpretation and the verse is thereby in correspondance with the message of the whole Bible!
Originally Posted by EricGray View Post
I looked up the COM on Amazon, but you have me concerned with the bias issue. Can you give me some examples?

Last edited by Unix; 6th January 2012 at 06:49 PM. Reason: add NRSV for Ep 2:10
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 7th January 2012, 11:42 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Baptist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 2nd January 2012
Posts: 8
Blessings: 15,560
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
EricGray is on a distinguished road
Thanks Unix,

I got the COM from Amazon today and I was stunned that I had never heard of it before. The book is a gold mine! I couldn't put it down for hours!

In any case, I see your concerns here, but I'm not sure exactly how they could have done it any differently. I was afraid that they would have had some kind of innovative bias, but it looks more like they were trying to give the most typical reading of those available for the Nestle-Aland. I think they were less concerned with trying to show what the New Testament SHOULD say and more concerned with showing what different textforms and translations DID say.

Being innovative would have made it more difficult to integrate twenty translations with four or five textforms.

I have to thank you for mentioning this hidden treasure. This has to be the best kept secret I've ever seen.

I've always liked the RSV, and my jaw dropped when I saw how much information this book had about my own favorite translation. And I really like the way you've corrected the texts on your own preferred translations against the COM notes when you've quoted scripture. I see what you were doing now, and it makes a lot of sense.

Eric
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 8th January 2012, 12:25 AM
Unix's Avatar
Studying Greek, NT Hermeneutics, Ptolemy

32 Gender: Male Faith: Anabaptist Country: Europe Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 29th November 2003
Location: Verbum+ ECC,Hermenei,Baker NTC (HK). Accorda Torah: A Modern Commentar,AYBC NT
Posts: 1,993
Blessings: 101,173,500
My Mood Serious
Reps: 191,834,061,793,295,392 (power: 191,834,061,793,307)
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Still, I wouldn't regard the word-choices as the most accurate possible. They could have done it another way. There's also the word propitiation missing in several verses, that's another example.
The correct translation of 1 Jn 2:2 would be therefore:
"Jesus Christ the righteous; and He himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (I don't remember for sure from which version that was, but probably CPDV, I have printed and fastened that verse in the margin of my New Testament Epistles : Early Christian Wisdom, editor John Drane, contains REB for Acts and the Pauline epistles, NRSV for Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter and Jude, and NJB for 1-3 Jn, + introductions to those NT books + a 115 page collection of poems )
Originally Posted by EricGray View Post
In any case, I see your concerns here, but I'm not sure exactly how they could have done it any differently. I was afraid that they would have had some kind of innovative bias, but it looks more like they were trying to give the most typical reading of those available for the Nestle-Aland. I think they were less concerned with trying to show what the New Testament SHOULD say and more concerned with showing what different textforms and translations DID say.
There is an even more well-hidden treasure which I've mentioned sparsely:
Textual Optimism - A Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, by Kent D Clark, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series 138, Sheffield Academic Press 1997, 350 pages. The most useful resource of it is an index which lists all the variant letter-ratings in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament versions 1-4 1966-1993, verse-by-verse. I don't know can You get hold of an ex, it's probably sold out both used and new, I bought mine in 2004 used on Amazon. That book would help You deal with the "Minor"-text-type variants in the COM. I'm not saying You have to get this book, it's not the most important thing to do.
Originally Posted by EricGray View Post
I have to thank you for mentioning this hidden treasure. This has to be the best kept secret I've ever seen.
Thanks! <3 Of course I do, that's not a big thing!
Originally Posted by EricGray View Post
And I really like the way you've corrected the texts on your own preferred translations against the COM notes when you've quoted scripture. I see what you were doing now, and it makes a lot of sense.

Eric
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Accordance MT-LXX Parallel


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


unorthodoxchristian freeforums

Commentaries besides the ones in location: Paideia (I have 6 vols., f.e. Eph/Col, Cor, Ro), New Interpreter's Bible, Oxford
& New posts welcome:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
/Oct. 1. 2014

Life doesn't shape us after what's happened, it's the conclusions we draw from what has happened, that shapes us.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 8th January 2012, 01:39 AM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Baptist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 2nd January 2012
Posts: 8
Blessings: 15,560
Reps: 10 (power: 0)
EricGray is on a distinguished road
I was quite intrigued with their notes on propitiation, now that you've pointed it out. I had no idea of it's connection with the LXX term for the Mercy Seat on the ark of the covenant.

There's also Comfort's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Comfort seems to be taking up where Metzger left off. I have both commentaries and love them.

Last edited by EricGray; 8th January 2012 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 14th January 2012, 02:27 PM
ptomwebster's Avatar
Senior Member

67 Gender: Male Married Faith: Protestant Party: US-Others Country: United States Member For 3 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 10th July 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 1,486
Blessings: 1,640,956
My Mood Serious
Reps: 217,928,881,340,404,128 (power: 217,928,881,340,409)
ptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond repute
ptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond reputeptomwebster has a reputation beyond repute

Unix,

In all your stuff I see no mention of the original languages of Scripture. If you really want to know what the Scriptures say you need to learn a little Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

I notice you also say in your "about me" area: "I converted to Bahŕ'ě, and now I have fully converted. I'm not a Christian, but occasionally (one or a few times a year) I attend some Orthodox church." That is why you have trouble understanding Scripture. Instead of storing your Bibles in a safe take them out and read them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 16th January 2012, 05:00 AM
Unix's Avatar
Studying Greek, NT Hermeneutics, Ptolemy

32 Gender: Male Faith: Anabaptist Country: Europe Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 29th November 2003
Location: Verbum+ ECC,Hermenei,Baker NTC (HK). Accorda Torah: A Modern Commentar,AYBC NT
Posts: 1,993
Blessings: 101,173,500
My Mood Serious
Reps: 191,834,061,793,295,392 (power: 191,834,061,793,307)
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
It would be nice to also get more replys on my OP!

I have mentioned Hebrew and Greek in one post. (Aramaic is not needed.) I use it very little.
Originally Posted by ptomwebster View Post
In all your stuff I see no mention of the original languages of Scripture. If you really want to know what the Scriptures say you need to learn a little Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Well, thank's for noticing that! Because I'll have to edit that a bit. Because I never fully converted (I extremely rarely look through the oldest parts of my profile, so that mention slipped unnoticed by me until now).
You missed that it said:
"<-- That was valid until spring '05"
Maybe my formatting was unclear?
At the end of the text on my profile, it says: "since the winter 2010/2011 Catholic."
The other day, saturday, I asked the priest that has the the mass in english, that I would like to start to convert to the Catholic Church. That can take 2 years, that's the custom over here.
Do You think that I shouldn't say so "much" before I've fully converted to Catholicism? IMHO there are many others on CF who say much more, and the longest posts I've made have berely been about listing which Bible versions I use and which not, which books I think are Scripture and which not - and I feel it's important to mention such things, otherwise people don't get a picture about what my views are. I've been interested in different Bible versions both in the mid '00s, and now in the '10s.

I'm Christian
http://www.christianforums.com/t7575124-post58226318/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7575124-post58441232/
I have to point out that, I believe there in afterlife.
And might I add: I believe in the resurrection.
I pray very briefly, not long prayers.

I haven't looked at the clock how much I spend time with the Bibles. I usually get up at 5 AM local time and start, first I look through discussions on CF. But I'm going to spend much time reading them and theology from commentaries. I've just placed an order last week, almost all of those books were from the U.S. so it's going to take several weeks before I get them here, and then I'll be reading more than I do right now. I've had a bit of household tasks occupying my time recently.
Originally Posted by ptomwebster View Post
I converted to Bahŕ'ě, and now I have fully converted. I'm not a Christian, but occasionally (one or a few times a year) I attend some Orthodox church." That is why you have trouble understanding Scripture.
The ones that are in the new safe I have to take out frequently, because one of the barriers in that safe is water, and the inside of the safe collects condensation over time which has to be aired-out.
I read the Bible's regularely. I just don't progress all that fast because I keep comparing most of the versions I have +CPDV and 1992 GNT from the internet, at every verse.
Originally Posted by ptomwebster View Post
Instead of storing your Bibles in a safe take them out and read them.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 6th February 2012, 07:00 PM
Unix's Avatar
Studying Greek, NT Hermeneutics, Ptolemy

32 Gender: Male Faith: Anabaptist Country: Europe Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 29th November 2003
Location: Verbum+ ECC,Hermenei,Baker NTC (HK). Accorda Torah: A Modern Commentar,AYBC NT
Posts: 1,993
Blessings: 101,173,500
My Mood Serious
Reps: 191,834,061,793,295,392 (power: 191,834,061,793,307)
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
The Translation Debate, by Eugene H. Glassman, InterVarsity Press, 1981

Bump! If anyone has anything to say regarding the OP or How to determine which Bible version to choose, then feel free to post in this thread!

Here's a really good book: The Translation Debate, by Eugene H. Glassman, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, 1981. It's very well written and gives a lot of things to think about. He often quotes what other say and has an opinion about that. Here's 3 examples from it:
1. In the minds of the average Bible reader today the word paraphrase commonly means a very free, loose and therefore inaccurate translation, in which the translator is subjective rather than objective, and puts his or her own ideas into the text, thus biasing the resultant translation. Bibe translation specialists are hence reluctant to use the word at all. Beekman and Callow do not apply the term to the types of translation they discuss, saying that "when used to characterize a translation, it is generally with a pejorative sense meaning that an attempt has been made to render the text in a form that is clearer to us than it was to the original readers with the result that extraneous information and unnecessary interpretations are found." * Beekman and Callow p. 21
In other words, a translation which deviates from the meaning of the original writer or speaker is not a translation at all. But neither should it be called a paraphrase, for "the usage of the word 'paraphrase' in linguistic circles is not applied to translation but rather to two different statements in a single language which have the same meaning. One statement is called the paraphrase of the other." * Ibid. Italics by Eugene H. Glassman
2. Clearly Phillips has produced one of the most readable and meaningful versions of the New Testament in present-day English. Further, there is no denying that "time and time again The Living New Testament [LB, an acknowledged paraphrase] is a faitful, clear, idiomatic and expressive representation of the meaning of the original." * Robert G. Bratcher, "The Living New Testament Paraphrased," book review in The Bible Translator, 20 (July 1969), 39, 131.
Yet, 1972 Phillips revised edition renders Luke 13:11 as "In the congregation was a woman who for eighteen years had been ill from some psychological cause;..." and 1962 Living Letters translates 2 Timothy 3:16 as: "The whole Bible [all sixty-six books, some of which had not even been written at that point in history] was given to us by inspiration from God." These particular renderings must be rejected on the ground that they are not legitimate paraphrase (in the sense of having been restructured on the level of the sentence kernels). Rather, they provide new information not intended by the original authors.
The question is not whether one happens to be in agreement with the underlying philosophical or theological reasons for the renderings. It is whether such translations are really saying the same thing as the original (that is, are paraphrased on the level of the kernel structures), ore are saying something different (that is, paraphrased on the level of surface structure, with additions, deletions or skewing of the original meaning).
3. [...] It is surprising that it took so long for biblical scholars to reach the conclusions that Deissmann through a stroke of genius came to almost overnight. What is even more surprising is that today, over three-quarters of a century later, many still argue that Bible language ought to be somewhat mysterious, so that to translate it in a way that makes sense to the common person is somehow an offence to God. To be sure, the jargon labeled by Hendricks as the church's "fog index" is quite acceptable to those who seem to revel in every new translation in the formal-correspondence style. Such translations tell them what they allready know (or suppose they know). But these translations say almost nothing to people who have never heard the message before.
In contrast, those who seek dynamic equivalence in translation attempt to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent to the message contained in the source language, keeping in mind both the meaning and the style. They recognize, of course, that no translation can succeed one hundred per cent; every translation suffers some loss of information, some addition of information and possibly some distortion of information. For all that, however, one can try to find the closest equivalence possible. Nida clarifies this outlook:
"By "natural" we mean that the equivalent forms should not be "foreigh" either in form (excpept of course for such inevitable matters as proper names) or meaning. That is to say, a good translation should not reveal its non-native source....
It is recognized that equivalence in both meaning and style cannot always be retained—in the acrostic poems of the Old Testament, to cite an extreme example [thus, Psalm 119]. When, therefore, one must be abandoned for the sake of the other, the meaning must have priority over the stylistic forms." * Nida, Language Structure and Translation, p. 33, italics by Eugene H. Glassman
Originally Posted by Unix View Post
Secondly, mostly the word-for-word translation is not of interest. I'm OK with a slant of what the translators thought the passage would mean. JB is just on the spot in regards of dynamic equivalence. English is so far from Hebrew and Greek, and the tought-pattern of the modern man has changed since Biblical times.
[...]
I'm really thinking right now, how is it that I select a certain version for a specific passage?! Well, I choose what's:
the most advanced,
gives meaning (but NO I don't try to search for the one that "opens up", because that would be a contradiction to the advanced-criteria),
I prefer Brittish over American English but that's of course not something I can use as a preference all the time,
and he right literary style - this is the point that is the hardest to explain
...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 4th March 2012, 09:19 AM
Unix's Avatar
Studying Greek, NT Hermeneutics, Ptolemy

32 Gender: Male Faith: Anabaptist Country: Europe Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 29th November 2003
Location: Verbum+ ECC,Hermenei,Baker NTC (HK). Accorda Torah: A Modern Commentar,AYBC NT
Posts: 1,993
Blessings: 101,173,500
My Mood Serious
Reps: 191,834,061,793,295,392 (power: 191,834,061,793,307)
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Unix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond reputeUnix has a reputation beyond repute
Back to the OP question. Would anyone like to voice an opinion what translation is the best for 1 Jn 2:5?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 21st March 2012, 12:55 AM
sdmsanjose's Avatar
Regular Member

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 19th June 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,439
Blessings: 3,187,908
Reps: 181,305,325,984,838,816 (power: 181,305,325,984,850)
sdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond repute
sdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond reputesdmsanjose has a reputation beyond repute
1 Jn 2:5
What do You think is the best version, or do You have a different suggestion perhaps from the Rheims Bible?:

I like the New Living Translation (NLT) the best.

The reason is that it seems to not exclude anyone that is trying but only partly obeying God's word from having some love for God. That is just the way that I read it. On the other hand I trust the NIVs a little more so I would compare the NLT with the NIVs



1 John 2

New Living Translation (NLT)
1 John 2

1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.
3 And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. 4 If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. 5 But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. 6 Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.




1 John 2

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
1 John 2

1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love[b] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.


1 John 2

Today's New International Version (TNIV)
1 John 2

1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Love and Hatred for Fellow Believers

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Those who say, “I know him,” but do not do what he commands are liars, and the truth is not in them. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

Other versions
1 John 2

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
1 John 2

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

2And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


3And hereby we know that we know Him: if we keep His commandments.


4He that saith, "I know Him," and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him.


5But whoso keepeth His Word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in Him.


6He that saith that he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.


1 John 2

American Standard Version (ASV)
1 John 2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
3 And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him:
6 he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked.


1 John 2

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 John 2

Christ Is Our Advocate

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an [a]Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the [b]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

1 John 2

King James Version (KJV)
1 John 2

1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Exposition & Bible Study

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 PM.