Anglican Prayer Beads  Prayer Beads  Anglican Rosary Rosaries  Natural Soap  Handmade Soap

re the KJV...heh heh, that rhymes.

I agree. Gorgeous. I use it for the birth story of Jesus in Luke and the 23rd psalm. If you know the Bible, it's nice.

But yeah, I don't think so for people who do not know the Bible well.

And yes, the NIV does pander to the evangelicals - in my opinion. Hebrews 4:12 for example. To translate the logos as "it" even though the masculine pronoun is used (autos) is really inexcusable. This makes it sound like the Bible is living and active, sharper than a 2-edged sword. That verse is about Christ.

And again in 2 Peter 1:20. "The prophet's own" instead of the more natural "one's own" because the later seems to suggest that no single person should interpret scripture. Sounds too Catholic.

But apart from little things like that, it's fine. I read from it, sometimes preach from it, always recommend it to those who need the meaning to be very clear.

Also, if you're a history geek like me, I recommend "God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible" by Adam Nicolson.

And I also would high recommend "Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired" by Benson Bobrick as well as "In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture " by Alistair McGrath. "Wide as the Waters" is actually highly readable.

Rev Mommy

Actually, the masculine pronoun autos is not found in the verse - just o logos. So "it" is an interpretation as you say, but of logos, not autos.

No, autos is there. But it is in the beginning of verse 13 (that was my mistake in not listing both verses) But verse 13 is a continuation of the sentence from 12, and the verse differentiation is meaningless, as you know.

12 - The Word of God is living and active, sharper....able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart, [13 begins]:

kai ouk estin ktisis aphanes enopion autou, panta de...

"and there is no creature hidden from HIS (autou) sight, but all things..."

Right. It is autou ("of him" or "of it"), not autos ("he"). So it is not inexcusable, only a translation you don't agree with.

At issue is whether one should translate autou in this case as "he" or "it." You’ve said this is merely a matter of interpretation or opinion. I disagree. It's not that ambiguous and using "it" causes a huge misunderstanding for English readers.

The antecedent for autou is clearly o logos. No question there. If you translate autou as “it,” what you are doing is using the neuter pronoun to describe the eternal Logos of God, the one spoken of in John 1 and throughout the New Testament. The Logos is a person, the one who was with God from the beginning. Translating this as “it” is the equivalent of using the word “it” to describe God. A thing we never do, though I suppose you could make the case that God is neither male nor female. Still, no one wants to use "it" to describe God.

The translation committee knew that if you translate this autou as “he” it points to the person of Christ, the Logos of God. If you translate it as “it” it points to some object. The average reader is going to think that object is the Bible. That's because we use the phrase, "The word of God" to refer to the Bible, a thing they didn't do in the first century. So whatever you do, you CANNOT in good conscience say that o logos is the Bible. That's our phrase and not theirs. That's why I think there is no question how it should be translated. You don't translate a verse in such a manner as to guarantee a misunderstanding by your readers.

I stand by my original statement. Translating this as “it” is inexcusable. And I think it was done to pander to the NIV audience. They didn't have the courage to tell all the people who think this verse names the Bible as a two-edged sword that it doesn't.

No more time for this exchange. You may have the last word if you like, and we'll leave it at that.

I'm simply pointing out that your original statement "To translate the logos as "it" even though the masculine pronoun is used (autos) is really inexcusable" is incorrect and misleading. The masculine pronoun autos is not used. Rather, the pronoun autou, which can be either masculine or neuter, is used. I have no quarrel with whatever else your are standing by.

I said I wouldn't respond, but I just can't help myself. I wonder if you've ever taken Greek, or if you are just looking up words in an online dictionary. Are you not aware that autos and autou are simply two forms of the same word? Autou is the genetive form of autos. The word autos (along with all of its forms including autou, auton, aute, etc.) can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. It all depends on what the antecedent is, what or who it refers to. In this case, since autou referes to the masculine noun "o logos," it is clearly a masculine pronoun. In this case it means "of him." That's the genetive use of the word. Autos (nominative case) is used if the pronoun is the subject of the sentence.

This whole thing is kind of weird. I mean, you latched onto this minor point. It's been a little irritating to me because it is such a minor point. Even more irritating because you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Why don't we just drop it.

I have a fair amount of Greek knowledge, having taught it for 15 years. I'll try this one more time. You said the NIV pandered by translating autos as "it" even though the masculine pronoun was used. Actually the use of the masculine pronoun is irrelevant here. It is masculine in vs. 13 because its antecedent "o logos" is masculine. If "word" had been a feminine noun, it would have been the feminine pronoun. The NIV used "it" because they feel "o logos" refers to the word of God, rather than Christ.

What I'm objecting to is that you are saying that the pronoun proves it is "he" when it doesn't at all. The pronoun is simply matching the case of "word," and can be translated "he" or "it," depending on what you think "o logos" is. It has nothing to do with interpreting what "o logos" means.

You don't like the NIV's (and many other translations) interpretation of "o logos" as the Bible, and that's fair. You just can't use the gender of autos to prove it.

sorry for the disrespect regarding your Greek. Um, what you've said here is exactly what I said in my last reply - everything. The pronoun, the dependance on the gender of the antecedent, all of it. The question is how you treat o logos. And if you equate that with the Bible, it's inexcusable - in my opinion. And my opinion is what I write about here. Looks like we just disagree on this.

and I really am done after this. Generating more heat than light.

I have a friend who believes the autos is referring to "of God" in vs. 12. I have tried repeatedly to explain that in addition to horrible writing style, that is not how the Greek language worked. Can you give me a more technical definition of why autos refers to "o logos" and not "tou theou?"

I'm glad to see someone sticking up for the aesthetic merits of the KJV. I wouldn't say it's readable in the sense of being accessible to a modern American audience, but if you're comfortable with the idiom of the period, I find it nothing short of beautiful.

Which is why modern translations make me sad; I know they're more rigorous and textually solid, but the everyday language just doesn't affect me as much. (And sometimes this leads to abominations like a translation I saw once -- I don't remember which one -- that seemed afraid to have any sentences longer than five or six words.)

I am fond of the Cotton Patch Gospel ...

Yeah, you could do that. BUT it wouldn't be very accurate. You'd end up with three different renderings and no basis for choosing one. I guess if you used the NASB and the NIV, you could get meaning from the latter and accurascy from the former. But there's a better way. Commentaries and various interpretive helps. They will tell you what the original language meant.

See, anyone could tell you what the original language meant, if you allowed them one paragraph for each verse. But a translation can't do that. It has to be concise, basically the same length as the original. So the trick is to have commentaries available and consult them about whatever passage you are working on.

Next video.

Someone IS translating it into Klingon.
Really.

Rev Mommy

I'm not familiar with it. Given my time restraint, I decided to limit this to translations that the average Joe can easily obtain. That may be a great translation, but I don't see it in stores. That said, some of the best things are not heavily marketed and in stores. But I'm going to deal with the reality of the situation.

Of course.

Yeah, I got a preview of that from someone. Interestingly, it's hard to find. That's because the NIV's constituency, conservtive evangelicals, threw a hissy fit when it came out - because of the inclusive language. They quit marketing it so as not to upset their customers. That's the problem with big translations. They must be marketed.

So anyone walking into your average bookstore will probably not be able to get a copy. At least I haven't seen any.