Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | flinkywood | 27241 | ||
Nolan, I misquoted the HCSB. It should read "But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be chidren of God, to those who believe in His name." Here "to become" is "to be", which makes "even" completely unnecesary. To "believe in" implies commitment; so why the NASB inclusion when it's not present in the Greek and confuses the verse? Maybe they're interpreting. If so, it ain't literal. I prefer the NKJV; I like it's music and style. The NASB feels more labored, as though it's thinking too hard. It makes me doubt it's collective wisdom. Have you read any of the HCSB? It reads clearly without a pile of interference (NIV), but cuts to the modern chase a little too hard in places. I also question its English usage. Here's Acts 16:18: "And she did this for many days. But Paul was greatly aggravated..." A condition is aggravated; a person is irritated. Both the NKJV and the NASB have it as "annoyed". Too many translations, man. Don't you love it? Colin | ||||||
2 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Hank | 27282 | ||
Hi, flinkywood! What an imaginative name. Something there is about it that makes me chuckle on this Monday morning. To add a gem of doubtful wisdom to the subject of all these new translations: I cut my biblical teeth on the King James Bible. When I was young -- it seems so long ago! -- the KJV was for all intents the only English version in common use. For its age and, to us modern folk, strange turns of phrase that were normal ways to say things in Jacobean English, it is yet to be toppled by modern versions in literary excellence. But for the most of us it becomes necessary -- and advisable -- to search out newer, clearer versions that better convey to us the eternal word of God. But should we play the unsettling game of "Bible grasshopper?" Is it wise to skip incessantly from one translation to another and to another, or is it better to choose one version carefully and adopt it as one's mainstay? To use a computer analogy, is it better to have one version designated as a "home page" at which one feels more comfortable at at home? I think so and believe there are cogent reasons why this is desirable. (1) Familiarity. The wording and format of a single version is an aid in finding passages. (2) Memorization. It makes no sense to memorize John 3:16 in one version and John 3:17 in another. (3) Marking and Notes. It is impractical and confusing to add personal markings in a dozen different translations. (4) Decision Making. It answers the questions, What translation should I read from today? and Which one should I take to church or Bible study class?........ There is much to be said in favor of using multiple translations to help clarify a difficult text, but much more to be said in favor of settling on a single translation as one's primary Bible. I've seen Bibles with four or more translations printed side by side in columns. They distract me no end, because I inevitably find myself concentrating on how a passage is being said and forgetting to notice what is being said. Choosing from among several excellent translations available a "main" Bible translation is largely a matter of personal taste. Three modern translations that come to mind as viable candidates are the NKJV, NASB, and NIV. Some of the newer versions, the Holman Christian Standard and the English Standard to name two, may well be rising stars with the potential of becoming the accepted standards of tomorrow. Time will tell. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | kalos | 27286 | ||
Hank: You have written what I consider a masterpiece on the wisdom of each person settling on one primary Bible translation. Well put, indeed. You have covered the most important points/issues and have done it well. This is another of your postings that I will print and save, as well as share with others. I agree with you that three modern translations worthy of consideration are the NKJV, NASB and NIV. I also agree that nothing will ever take the place of the KJV, especially in the hearts of those of us who were "raised on it." Nowadays it seems that a majority of preachers, teachers, writers, those who study apologetics, etc. prefer the text of either the NASB or NIV for serious learning and teaching. That is not to put down other fine translations. Just stating a fact. I believe the NKJV is *one* of the preeminent English translations available today. Everything about it is marked by excellence. kalos |
||||||
4 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Makarios | 27370 | ||
Greetings Kalos, I would agree: the NKJV, NASB and NIV are the "big three" in my library as well.. :-) Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||