Ahhhhhhhhh
So the NIV scholars used their whims and personal opinions in translating those verses?
And Petersen the same in The Message?
LOL.
Cheers.
Quix wrote:
“So the NIV scholars used their whims and personal opinions in translating those verses?”
No. I didn’t say that. And it was hardly whims. They read the verses through the tinted lenses of exclusively Calvinist/Arminian theology. Look at the list of the contributers. Look also at how the NIV is going the way of all flesh. It is an endangered species. The KJV will outlive the NIV even with its antiquated, but in general, accurate translation. Calvinist/Arminian theology has a habit of turning Gospel into Law. That is one of the chief problems with the NIV (along with the whole idea of “dynamic equivalence”).
Petersen and “The Message” I don’t know. But neither did/do I know “The Living Bible,” which from the title, I would guess, is a similar item.
Cheers to you too.
Quix, from Wiki:
“Although often called a paraphrase, The Message is instead a translation from the original languages. It is a highly idiomatic translation, and as such falls on the extreme dynamic end of the dynamic and formal equivalence spectrum.”
So, yes, yuck. The old expression for such a thing used to be “too clever by half.”