Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,758
Joined: September 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,638
Posts51,173
Members927
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,436
Tom 3,455
chestnutmare 2,915
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,758
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 21
Pilgrim 14
John_C 3
Johan 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Mexican illegal immigration into the USA
by Anthony C.. Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:32 PM
Presuppositional Debate
by Tom. Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:12 PM
Question about sermons
by Johan. Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:54 AM
Same sex atrraction sinful then what?
by Tom. Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:35 AM
TWU Denied Law School Accreditation
by Tom. Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:14 AM
Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text
by Pilgrim. Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:43 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
NRSV #15217
Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:34 PM
Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Is it just me, or are these two versions saying something completely different? The part I'm thinkning about is the last phrase.


Philippians 2:12-13

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (NASB)

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (NRSV)


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Re: NRSV [Re: MarieP] #15218
Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:24 PM
Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:24 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Marie,

What makes you think they are saying different things? Is it the words "enables you?"


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Re: NRSV [Re: Wes] #15219
Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:59 PM
Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:59 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Yes. In the NASB, it reads as though God is doing the "willing and working," and in the NRSV it appears like we are doing the "willing and working," although in both it is dome to His good pleasure.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "completely" different. But I do see a difference. Not that they can't both be true statements, as the Lord has freed our (meaning Christians) wills so they would be bound to serve Him.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Re: NRSV [Re: MarieP] #15220
Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:18 PM
Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Well, the basic motivation is from God. So when you take this thought in context with verse 12 you realize that Paul is refering to sanctification. The sactifying process calls for obedience. So even their wills and their actions are the very arenas where God's own power is working.

I don't think the two versions disagree with each other.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Re: Which Bible version(s)? #15221
Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:19 AM
Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:19 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I prefer the ESV. I frequently use the NKJV (a MacArthur study Bible). I have the NIV and ESV on my Palm Pilot -- of which the NIV is the quickest and easiest to use. My oldest two kids (ages 8 and 6) each have an NLT -- which we read together. I wish I could read Greek and Hebrew. Maybe someday . . . . .

Re: Which Bible version(s)? #15222
Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:03 PM
Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:03 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I absolutely love the ASV. I discovered it a couple of months ago, and someone SENT ME HIS OLD ONE THAT HE USED WHEN HE WAS A KID. I GOT IT FREE. HE EVEN PAID THE SHIPPING.

How I LOVE CHRISTIANS. Really, I often sit and MARVEL at the brotherhood and kindness fellow Christians show to me when they've never met me or even talked to me in more than an email... Ya'll might not think it a big deal, but this bible is PERFECT. ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.

Not only is it my favorite version, but it's got the NICE old true paper, the kind that doesn't crinkle easily (unlike the new crap paper that feels more like a shred of colored plastic than anything,) it's black CALFSKIN leather, (black too, my absolute favorite color of bibles,) gold edges, it's got like a 600 page concordance (no joke,) crossreferences like you WOULDN'T BELIEVE (sometimes 100 to a PAGE) really thick (which makes it ALOT easier to find something in your bible, it really does) about 9x6" length/width. I mean, this bible is PERFECT.

And it's small print, only black letter.


The only thing that thwarts it is the actual version. It's so...BEAUTIFUL. and it's LITERAL. And it substitutes "Jehovah" in for the name "The Lord" which makes it ten times easier when you have two names right next to each other, because it's written "The Lord Jehovah," not, "Sovereign Lord" like the crap NIV does.

I mean, this bible is...unbelievable. I mean, if I could print my own bible, this would be it. Check out the ASV, it's so wonderful.

Aside the ASV, the NASB is OKAY. I find it substitutes awesome literature for basic American understanding, like substituting out, "And he knew her," for, "And Adam laid with his wife," or something like that. (I don't know if it actually does that, but that would be an example that I see all too often in the NASB.) It's so beautiful, "And he knew her," for instance, because it shows that knowing in the biblical sense is an intimate knowledge. The Hebrew word "Yada" signifies that, and the ASV parellels it perfectly in the English. Granted, you sometimes have hard to understand sentences and fragments occasionally, but it makes all the difference in the world when STUDYING something, which I often do.

I love the ESV, though. The only problem I've ever had with the ESV is that it takes out some really cool language like, 'vain repetition' and adds in 'mindless babbling' or something like that. I've only spotted it twice, once in that passage, and another in one of Paul's Epistles. I find the Hebrew transliteration to be almost perfect in the ESV, however, particularly in the Psalms.

The Psalms are by far the most beautiful poetry ever written, especially in the Hebrew tongue, where you can see every facet and simultude of understanding, you can actually FEEL the Psalmist, and the ESV, I feel does an AMAZING job of putting that into English. The ESV, aside the ASV, is absolutely stunning with the Hebrew-English. The Greek-English I've found better than par, but not exceptionally amazing from the ESV.

I hate the NIV for too many reasons to list. My Pastor often has to use alternative versions for sermons because the NIV is often far too liberal and non-literal with their translations. I also find the NIV to be HORRIBLE to read out loud (it is so EXTREMELY WORDY), while the ESV is almost perfect for modern English when reading out loud. Well, I won't go on with the NIV.

The KJV and NKJV I really like. I'm a big fan of both, especially the NKJV while witnessing, although I haven't had any tracts in the ESV which I would really love. Again, I could rant and rave about how the NIV has horrible witnessing verses compared to the other versions, particularly in taking out 'begotten' in John 3:16 and such. *grumble*

I don't use any other versions, and I find the Holman Christian Bible to be too similiar to the NIV in many of the respects I've just said, but yet, more literal, so I could easily put up with it more than the NIV.

Sorry for having you all read all this...I didn't expect to talk this much on bible versions.

Re: NRSV [Re: Wes] #15223
Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:42 AM
Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:42 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Wes,

My two cents worth: I am concerned when a translation switches the subject of an action from being God to being ourselves. On the principles of grammar and translation alone, this is disturbing.

Re: Which Bible version(s)? [Re: J_Edwards] #15224
Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:49 AM
Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:49 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I’ll go out on a limb here and share that my favorite version is the NKJV. The translators went about the translation in a fashion similar to the NASB, but with more conservatism. They honored the work of the KJV translators (while updating the English) and they have corrected a lot of confusion about the various manuscripts available for translation.

For example, they are not as negative towards the textus receptus as Bruce Metzger and other translation teams (re: Nestles-Aland United Bible Society) were for their modern translations. Bruce and colleagues used presumptuous statements for foot notes like, ‘…the older and more reliable mss do not contain the following…’. Note, “NU” is an abbreviation for Nestles-Aland United Bible Society.

The NKJV translators, on the contrary, provide more explanation and a better representation of the truth. Case in point: the “Mark 16:9-20 controversy”. NKJV translators explain the issue as follows:
Quote

Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.

I have a very in-depth explanation for the above Codex “omissions” if anyone asks me to share it. I believe the omissions in these uncial manuscripts to be innocent and unfortunate and that verses 9-20 are indeed valid and inspired.

I used to like the NASB because it corrected so many of the liberal licenses of the RSV. They updated the English and their footnotes were very thorough. I seem to recall that they showed the verse or prose separations that appear in OT like the Psalms, etc. This added depth and understanding to the poetry that accompanies some of the OT language. The contrasts of the Proverbs show up more clearly where they showed us “indentations of thought”.

The NIV basically followed suit, however, there were some disturbing departures of liberal translation license. The translators used a method dubbed “dynamic equivalence” and for me this is just too liberal and subject to translator bias, something we definitely do not want in translation of inspired scripture

Re: Which Bible version(s)? #15225
Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:55 PM
Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:55 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,455
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,455
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Isn't the NKJV translated from the Majority Text?

Tom

Re: Which Bible version(s)? [Re: Tom] #15226
Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:19 AM
Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:19 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Quote

...the original intent by the translators of the NKJV (italic portion added) was to do the new translations from the majority text, what ultimately happened in the midst of the commercial endeavor was to merely change the English text by modernizing a number of archaic words which makes it little more than a Scofield without notes.

This comes from "The Biblical Position on the KJV Controversy" written by the Elders of Grace Community Church (John MacArthur, Jr's church). I have a more complete version of his article, hopefully in electronic version that I can share if you are interested.

Scrivener, circa 1894, was able to find excellant agreement between the KJV text basis and the textus receptus that is essentially a subset of the majority text. His work shows that about 50% of the KJV text derives from Theodore Beza's 5th and 8th edition of 1598. 25% can be attributed to Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd edition 1550/51 and portions from the Complutension Polyglot 1514-1520 (Spain).

If you remove the redundancy of the MT (majority text), you have the TR (textus receptus) to an agreement of 98%. The same cannot be said for the Uncial mss. (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), they agree about 85% but they did not enter the KJV nor the NKJV.

Tischendorf did not discover the Sinaiticus Aleph uncial until about 1844. I am not sure on the Vaticanus B. However they have been reported to date to at least the 4th century, AD.

Some have tried to villefy these older manuscripts but I remain neutral, that is, I consider them an amazing find and their confirmation of the body of Greek text representing MT is amazingly accurate.

Kindly remember in all this that we are discussing faithful, sincere translations, not the original, inerrent autographs. The translations were made without resort to conflation nor eclectic translation methods.

Re: Which Bible version(s)? [Re: Tom] #15227
Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:51 AM
Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:51 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Tom,

I would consider MacArthur's quote about the NKJV being merely a Scofield without the notes unfair to this translation. I have a great deal of respect for the translators of this version. As I shared, they remained very true to the KJV and its heritage of manuscripts from which it was compiled.

The 1611 KJV translators themselves said of the authorized version that they desired to make from several "good translations" a better. Or to use their words:
Quote

...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one priciple good one,...

The NKJV translators did update many archaic words and phraseology that is obviously outdated. But a comparison of NKJV to KJV shows that they did this with a care and respect for the original work.

They also provided an unbiased view of the various manuscript support for scriptures that they footnote and their explainations for alledged ommisions or inclusions have better documentation than what I have seen with the NIV and RSV.

The unfortunate fact is that without the original autographs, many of our Christian brothers have taken to grievousome quarrels and name calling over the issue of translations. But we can surely have an honest, open understanding of which versions are reliable and reject those that are obviously opposed to the Truth. And I suppose this must be a personal decision as forced conformity has resulted in some sad results.

Re: Which Bible version(s)? #15228
Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:00 PM
Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:00 PM
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Virginia
Reformation Monk Offline
Addict
Reformation Monk  Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 416
Virginia
I have to admit, I'm suprised there wasn't more for the NIV. Most people I know use the NIV.

I'm getting a MacArthur study bible for Christmas. I can't wait. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> It's a NKJV. It'll be my first NKJV.

I have used the NIV mostly but I've come to like the NASB very well.

But I still like the easy reading style of the NIV.

Dave.


Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16
Re: Which Bible version(s)? [Re: Reformation Monk] #15229
Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:39 AM
Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:39 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Chicagoland
gotribe Offline

Old Hand
gotribe  Offline

Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,060
Chicagoland
My daily Bible is the Geneva Study Bible in NKJV, but I am using the ESV more and more. I don't own one yet, but I access it online for study and comparison. I heard a while back that the Geneva Study Bible (now called the Spirit of the Reformation Bible?) is going to be offered in ESV. If and when that comes out, I will probably buy one then.


Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine
Hiraeth
Re: Which Bible version(s)? [Re: Reformation Monk] #15230
Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:36 AM
Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:36 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Puritan,

Thanks for your post. My girls both Bible Quizzed on the NIV for several years. I agree that it is easy to read and a good study Bible. It has been an accepted standard for several years until the recent (5 years or so ago) bashing by the KJV-only people who have some serious hang-ups.

I may post more when I get some time. Thanks for your input.

Tom

Re: Which Bible version(s)? #15231
Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:41 AM
Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:41 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,436
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,436
NH, USA
Quote
believingThomas said:
Thanks for your post. My girls both Bible Quizzed on the NIV for several years. I agree that it is easy to read and a good study Bible. It has been an accepted standard for several years until the recent (5 years or so ago) bashing by the KJV-only people who have some serious hang-ups.

Sorry to inform you, but it's not just the infamous "KJV-only" people who have serious problems with the NIV. There are those of us who take "verbal plenary inspiration" seriously and therefore reject the method of translation used, i.e., "Dynamic Equivalence". There are a number of threads on the Board which you could do a search for and read the discussions about this. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 23 guests, and 115 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael, Ray
927 Registered Users
Shout Box
June
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
768,957 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.055s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 2.9745 MB (Peak: 3.2877 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-23 19:55:48 UTC