Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lockman's italicized words alter meaning | Mal 2:5 | Ray | 42495 | ||
Hi NoDoctrineOfMen, We probably have the same outlook on Bible translation in that I enjoy the literal word for word versions. I, too, would tend to add as few words as possible to the text.(If I were knowledgeable in Hebrew and doing translation work). We are in the same boat.:) And how we interpret the Scriptures is a personal thing that will affect our beliefs and our relationship with God. I commend you on your attention to little details for they could mean a lot. Personally, in my bibly study I am more concerned with the pronouns of Deity and would question the addition of words in the NKJ for this verse. NKJ, Malachi 2:5, "My covenant was with him, "one of" life and peace, And I gave them to him "that he might" fear "Me"; So he feared Me And was reverent before My name." So, here in the NKJ as I have typed it out, the words in quotes are the ones that are italized in the text. "One of" is denoting a single covenant with (as you have pointed out) a plural [them] which confuses the issue. In adddition it gives a pronoun of "Me" that I would like a Hebrew scholar to affirm as appropriate. The NKJ has five pronouns and the NASB has only four. I would go with your translation except I would leave out the comma and put in a word like "for". "My covenant with him was life and peace and I gave them to him for reverence, so that he revered Me and stood in awe of My name." I find nothing wrong with our determining what is right for us in this verse, especially since it will not affect any major doctrine that I know of. My friend Kalos is anxious to keep the Scriptures as they are. He is a respected contributor here and if you bear with him you might come to like him. :) From the heart, Ray |
||||||
2 | Lockman's italicized words alter meaning | Mal 2:5 | NoDoctrineOfMen | 42544 | ||
Thank you, Ray, for your insightful reply. The NKJV would seem at my first glance to be a bit more departure from the original Greek than the NASB. Is it because the NKJV may be a reworking of the KJV rather than a retranslation? Regarding the NASB, your addition of "for" is very nice and one that I hadn't thought of myself. Adding "for" seems to keep with the meaning as promulgated by the NASB committee, who I'm sure had their reasons for wording the verse as they did. I would have to say your suggestion with "for" may be the happy medium here between my thoughts and the NASB committee's. As you say, this is not a doctrinal issue, so no big deal at all. But when I encounter verses heavy with added words I always parse them carefully just to be a good Berean. I do trust the Lockman Foundation's translation as a whole and generally defer to their choice of words. I also listen for what His Spirit may have for me without the added words, and so far I haven't found any doctrinal areas I've had to ponder in this regard. Again, thank you for your insight. I look forward to parsing other verses with you! |
||||||