Site Map | Comments on versions | KJV-Onlyism | My Translations | Links Page | Gay Marriage Licenses

 

Bible Versions Comparison Page

 

For now, my library of English New Testaments is comprised of twenty-eight versions.  See the bottom of this page for explanation of the version abbreviations, and copyright notices.  Copyright notices for reference works and their abbreviations are also on the bottom.

First I give some examples of scripture passages just to illustrate some of the difficulties and issues involved when translating the New Testament.

 

NOTE: This page uses the UTF-8 character set and some Unicode fonts.  If you cannot view the Greek text correctly under where it says Mark 14:6 below, then you should upgrade your computer to at least Windows XP or Mac OXS 10.0, so it can handle Unicode.

Mark 14:6

καλὸν ἔργον ἠργάσατο ἐν ἐμοί

MLB	She has treated Me nobly.
Tynd	She hath done a good work on me.
KJV	she hath wrought a good work on me (Not the AV1611 on this page, since most people who have a KJV don't have one.)
Douay	She hath wrought a good work upon me.
ASV	she hath wrought a good work on me.
YLT	a good work she wrought on me;
Recov	She has done a noble deed on Me.
ACV	She performed a good work on me.
Darby	she has wrought a good work as to me;
Wey	She has done a most gracious act towards me.
CBW	She has done a good deed to me.
BBE	she has done a kind act to me.
NASB	She has done a good deed to me.
Beck	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
RSV	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
ESV	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
NIV,TNIV	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
NLT	Why berate her for doing such a good thing to me?
MKJV	She has done a good work towards Me
LITV	She worked a good work toward Me
ALT	She worked a good work to Me [or, performed a good deed for Me]
Phil	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
JB	What she has done for me is one of the good works.
NKJV	She has done a good work for me
NAB	She has done a good thing for me.
REB	It is a fine thing she has done for me.
NRSV	She has performed a good service for me.
JNT	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
NCV	She did an excellent thing for me.
CEV	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
Mess	She has just done something wonderfully significant for me.
NET	She has done a good service for me.
WEB	She has done a good work for me.
ISV	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
GW	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
Alex	She did a beautiful service for me
HCSB	She has done a noble thing for me.
EMTV	She has worked a beautiful work for Me
DRP	She has performed a good work with me.
The meaning here is a Jewish concept of good works. Jesus also said in the next verse, "The poor you always have with you, and you can do well with them whenever you want; but me you do not always have." The Greek word sometimes is just a marker of the dative case, in this case a circumstantial indicator: "she has done a good work in the circumstance of my being here. Or, used me to perform a mitzvah.
Mark 15:2
Σὺ λέγεις.
You are saying
Wey	I am
Beck	Yes
CBW	Yes.
Phil	Yes, I am.
GW	Yes, I am.
NET	You say it yourself
Alex	You said it."* Literally, "You say."
NASB	It is as you say.
NKJV	It is as you say.
NIV	Yes, it is as you say
Recov.	It is as you say.
NLT	Yes, it is as you say.
EMTV	You are saying what is so.
Mess	If you say so
Tynd	thou sayest it.
KJV	Thou sayest it.
Douay	Thou sayest it.
ASV	Thou sayest.
Darby	Thou sayest.
MKJV	You say it
LITV	You say it
YLT	Thou dost say [it].
Phillips	You say that I am
RSV	You have said so.
ESV	You have said so.
TNIV	You have said so.
HCSB	You have said it.
MLB	So you say.
WEB	So you say.
ISV	You say so.
BBE	You say so.
NAB	You say so.
NRSV	You say so.
JB	It is you who say it
REB	The words are yours
JNT	The words are yours
NCV	Those are your words
CEV	Those are your words
ALT	_You_ are saying [it]
ACV	Thou say.
DRP	You are the one saying that.

I am quite sure that all of the translations that render the phrase Σὺ λέγεις as an affirmative answer, such as “Yes,” or “You are right in saying..,” are not accurate.  We are often told that Σὺ λέγεις was an idiom in Greek for “Yes,” but I have seen no evidence of that.  On the contrary, ALL instances of the phrase Σὺ λέγεις in the Septuagint, which would be the brand of Greek the New Testament writers would be familiar with, do not mean “Yes,” but literally just as the words mean, “You are saying,” or “You are claiming.”  There are 10 instances of this exact phrase in the Septuagint: 1 Kings 3:23; 18:11; 1814; 2 Esdras 15:12; 16:8; Amos 7:16; Jeremiah 39:25, 36, 43; 47:16.  Not a single one of them means “Yes.”  For a spelling out of each of these examples, see the endnote in my translation of Mark.  If someone says Σὺ λέγεις is an idiom, I say “Prove it with examples from Biblical Greek literature.”  I have offered 10 proofs that it is NOT an idiom.

In addition, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy about the Lamb of God demands that Jesus not answer the question.  "As a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth."  And Pilate's reaction is telling.  We are told that Pilate was astonished that Jesus gave no answer, not to even a single charge.

Conclusion: The “dynamic equivalent” translations are often just junk.  Sometimes they are right about so-called idioms, but you generally are safer going with a more formal equivalent translation.

John 8:44b

ὅταν	λαλῇ	τὸ ψεῦδος,	ἐκ	τῶν ἰδίων	λαλεῖ,	ὄτι	ψεύστης	ἐστὶν	καὶ	ὁ πατὴρ	αὐτοῦ
when	he speaks	a lie	from	things of his own	he speaks	because	liar	he is	and	the father	of it

 

Tynd	When he speaketh a lie, then speaketh he of his own.  For he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Douay	When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
ASV	When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
MKJV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.
KJV	When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Darby	When he speaks falsehood, he speaks of what is his own; for he is a liar and its father.
NKJV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
WEB	When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Recov	When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own possessions; for he is a liar and the father of it.
ALT	Whe he is speaking falsehood, out of his own he speaks, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
LITV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
ACV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
MLB	When he tells a lie he talks naturally; for he is a liar and its father;
YLT	when one may speak the falsehood, of his own he speaketh, because he is a liar - also his father
Wey	Whenever he utters his lie, he utters it out of his own store; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
CBW	When he tells a lie, he speaks out of his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
Phil	Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks in character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
RSV	When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
ESV	When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NASB	Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
JB	when he lies he is drawing on his own store, because he is a liar, and the father of lies.
NIV	When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NAB	When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
REB	When he tells a lie he is speaking his own language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NRSV	When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NCV	When he tells a lie, he shows what he is really like, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
NLT	When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.
ISV	Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NET	Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
GW	Whenever he tells a lie, he's doing what comes naturally to him.  He's a liar and the father of lies.
Pick	Whenever he speaks the lie he speaks from his own things, because he is a liar and the father of lying.
EMTV	When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
Mess	When the Liar speaks, he makes it up out of his lying nature and fills the world with lies.
Ampl	When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false.
BBE	When he says what is false, it is natural to him, for he is false and the father of what is false
JNT	When he tells a lie, he is speaking in character; because he is a liar - indeed, the inventor of the lie!
CEV	He speaks on his own, and everything he says is a lie.  Not only is he a liar himself, but he is also the father of all lies.
HCSB	When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars
I am inclined more toward what the HCSB has. But, the genitive possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ here is difficult to interpret, and the BDF grammar, for John 8:44b, refers you to section 282(3), which says that αὐτοῦ is an attributive genitive, in a seemingly oblique case, (not in formal number/gender/case concord with any immediate noun or referent) which here is to be referred through ψεύστης to ὅταν λαλῇ to τὸ ψεῦδος, in other words, "the lie." But it also says that an interpretation such as that of the YLT is possible. The BAGD lexicon says, "The oblique cases of autoV very often (in a fashion customary since Homer) take the place of the 3rd person personal pronoun; in particular the genitive case replaces the missing possessive pronoun." It says, in this case referring to a noun to be supplied from the context. This means that the options are "liar" and "the lie."

 

 

John 6:39 last

 

ἵνα	πᾶν	ὃ	δέδωκέν	μοι
so that	all	which	he has given	to me

 

μὴ	ἀπολέσω	ἐξ	αὐτοῦ,	ἀλλὰ	ἀναστήσω	αὐτὸ	ἐν	τῇ	ἐσχάτῃ	ἡμέρᾳ
not	I might lose	of	it	but	raise up	it	in	the	last	day

 

This passage is related to John 6:37, which says “All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not drive away.”  Jesus is talking about human beings.

 

Tynd - that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing: but should raise it up again at the last day.
Douay - that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up in the last day.
KJV - that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
ASV - that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Darby - that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in the last day.
Wey - that of all that He has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it to life on theday.
MLB – that of all that He gave Me I shall lose nothing but shall raise it up at the last day.
NASB - that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
NAB - that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.
RSV - that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
ESV - that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
NRSV - that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Recov - that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up in the last day.
Pick    that I should lose nothing out of all that He has given me, but should raise it up at the last day

I have two main problems with these above renderings.  One, just what is "it" that will be raised up at the last day?  Anything and everything that God has given the Son?  Surely not.  Let's see, among the things God gave the Son are some sayings (John 17:8).  Are those sayings going to be raised again at the last day?  No.  They have never died.  God's word abides for ever.  This is not what Jesus was saying.  There is only one thing he raises from the dead, and that is mortal humans.  Not demons.  Not words.  Not trees.  Not just anything is included in the "it."

Two, there should be two "it"s in this verse.  And where is the phrase "of it" as in "I might not lose of it"?  it looks like they meant to combine the "pan" (all or every) in the beginning of the phrase, with the "of it" clause later.  I guess I'll buy it.

The pronouns in this context are neuter in gender and singular in number. Now why? Are they referring back to the two "he's" of verse 35, which are masculine in gender? In Greek, the parts of speech have to agree with each other in person, number, gender and case. Otherwise, you know that they are not linked. A neuter pronoun does not refer back to a masculine word.

 

JBP - that I should not lose anything of what he has given me, but should raise it up when the last day comes.

 

Again, this combines the "pan" in the beginning of the phrase, with the "of it" clause later, but with a different wording method.  I don't like the fact that "pan" is not translated as "all" or "every."  And it is still too vague as to just what "it" is that will be raised up at the last day.

 

NIV - that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

 

Ampl. - that I should not lose any of all that He has given Me, but that I should give new life and raise [them all] up at the last day.

 

"Them"? How did neuter singular become plural? See my footnote on this in my translation of the gospel of John- for the theory of "attraction of the relative."

 

TNIV - that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

GW - doesn't want me to lose any of those he gave me.  He wants me to bring them back to life on the last day.

 

These go further in converting neuter singulars to plurals. Two neuter singulars converted to plurals, instead of just the one relative pronoun.

 

CEV - to make certain that none of the ones he has given me will be lost.  Instead, he wants me to raise them to life on the last day.

NCV - I must not lose even one whom God gave me, but I must raise them on the last day.

NLT - that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them to eternal life at the last day.

NET - that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day.

ISV - that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day.

BBE - I am not to let out of my hands anything which he has given me, but I am to give it new life on the last day.

REB - that I should not lose even one of those he has given me, but should raise them all up on the last day.

JB - that I should lose nothing of all that he has given to me, and that I should raise it up on the last day.

HCSB - that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day.

CBW - that I should lose none of all that He has given me, but should raise them to life on the last day.

JNT - that I should not lose any of all those he has given me but should raise them up on the Last Day.

 

These are accurate, assuming the "attraction of the relative" theory is correct, and it may well be.

 

Mess - that everything handed over to me by the Father be completed-not a single detail missed-and at the wrap-up of time I have everything and everyone put together, upright and whole.

 

WEB - that of all He has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day.

 

YLT - that all that He hath given to me I may not lose of it, but may raise it up in the last day;

ACV – that of all that he has given me I would not lose from it, but I will raise it up at the last day

 

DRP - that of all flesh that he has given me, I would not lose any of it, but raise it up at the last day.

Again, what is "it"? Putty? Tree bark? Money? It might be good to supply a word here, in my opinion, to have a decent, intelligible translation. The word "it" just sounds too odd. And the word "flesh" is a Semitic concept for mortal humanity. That truly is what he is talking about. And I put the word "flesh" in italics, to indicate to people that the word σάρξ "sarx" is not in the Greek text of this verse. In the phrase "That he would not lose any of 'it' ", we have a neuter pronoun.

I added the word "flesh" here for several reasons. One, is that the neuter singular pronoun "it" is just too weird, in my opinion, to use, when we are talking about people. Jesus is talking about people, everyone agrees. The word σάρξ "sarx" is actually in the Greek text, in a similar passage later in John, in John 17:2, and "anthropoi" in John 17:6. John 17 is related to John 6:37, which says “All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not drive away.”  In both passages, Jesus is talking about humans that the father gives to him. Also in both passages, John uses neuter pronouns. True, σάρξ "sarx" is feminine and ἄνθροποι "anthropoi" is masculine. But in English, the word "it" is neuter, so the word "flesh" works well for English. (I am not saying that words that are neuter case in Greek have to be neuter in English!)  I add words like I did here, only rarely, and when I do, I put the words added in italics, like I did here.

 

Now here, I am starting a section in which I evaluate translations as to accuracy.  These are my opinions, this is my web page.  Let us agree on this: I am not the last word on these points.  Okay?  These other translators certainly could know something I don't know.  By the same token, I could know something they don't know.  I will give reasons for my opinions.  These are points I have had to think about, in order to do my own translations from Greek to English. At the end, I will give a points total.

 

Luke 1:15b

καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ

and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, beginning yet in his mother's womb.

 

BBE	from his birth

 

This one does not translate so many words.  It does not translate the word ἔτι (still or yet), it does not translate mother, and it does not translate womb.  It is also inaccurate regarding the timing of John's being filled with the Spirit. Minus 4 points.

 

WEY	from the very hour of his birth
CBW	even from his birth
Phil	from the moment of his birth
MLB	and from his birth
NIV	even from birth
REB	From his very birth
NCV	even from birth
CEV	from the time he is born

 

These do not translate mother, and womb, and have the timing wrong.  Minus 3 points.

 

Mess   from the moment he leaves his mother's womb

 

This one has the timing wrong.  It also mistranslates the word ἔτι.  Minus 2 points.

 

KJV                 even from his mother's womb

Douay            even from his mother's womb

ASV                even from his mother's womb

Darby             even from his mother's womb

YLT                even from his mother's womb

WEB               even from his mother's womb

JB                    Even from his mother's womb

RSV                even from his mother's womb

ESV                even from his mother's womb

NKJV             even from his mother's womb

Recov.            even from his mother's womb

NAB               even from his mother's womb

JNT                 even from his mother's womb

ALT                even from his mother’s womb

LITV              even from his mother’s womb

MKJV             even from his mother’s womb

 

These do not translate clearly enough to indicate that John was filled with the Spirit while still in the womb.  Minus 1 point.

 

NLT                even before his birth

ISV                 even before he is born

NET                even before his birth

GW                 even before he is born

NRSV             even before his birth

TNIV              even before he is born

 

The above get the timing right, but fail to translate mother and womb.  Could be minus 2, but since they got the very important timing right, I am only deducting 1 point.  Minus 1 point.

 

Tyndl even in his mother's womb

NASB while yet in his mother's womb

Alex    while he is in his mother's womb.

HCSB while still in his mother's womb

EMTV  while still in his mother’s womb

DRP    beginning yet in his mother's womb

 

These are correct.  We know it means that John would be filled with the Spirit even while still in the womb, because in Luke 1:41, 44, John, while he was a 6-month in-utero fetus, leaped "in exultation" (v. 44) when he heard the voice of the mother of his Lord. The angel predicted that he would be filled with the Spirit "yet from his mother's womb." That means "starting in his mother's womb onward." John was filled with the Spirit while still in his mother's womb. Not just "from birth." There is quite a difference. Luke used the words "mother's womb," because that is what he meant. If "from birth" is what he meant, he could have said that in Greek. But Luke, 'the beloved physician,' is attentive to the medical details for us. In Isaiah in the Septuagint, in chapter 44 verses 2 and 44, God said, "I am the one who formed you from the womb." There, the Greek words are the same as here in the Luke passage, ek koiliaV. We know the forming began while still in the womb. The addition of the word ἔτι in the Luke passage just makes it all the more clear that God meant that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, and forward from then on.

 

 

1 Corinthians 6:9

 

οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

 

primarily focusing on the rendering of ἀρσενοκοίτης.  The etymological constituency of this word is, ἄρσην (or ἄρσεν) + κοίτη; with ἄρσην meaning "male, of the male sex", and κοίτη meaning "a bed," euphemistically used for sexual intercourse, thus, males in a bed together together for purposes of sexual activity.  I know, people will immediately say that words do not mean the total of their etymological constituency.  But sometimes that is all we have to go by.  Homosexual theologians would have us believe that there are no scriptures referring to "modern" homosexuality at all.  They will tell you that many forms of homosexuality were allowed in the ancient world.  That is irrelevant, since among the people of God,  homosexuality has always been forbidden.  So there must have always been a word for that which was forbidden.  And this is the word in the Greek language.

The BAGD definition of ἀρσενοκοίτης:

"a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite"

 

I have grouped the translations as follows:

 

Mess:  (all sexual sins, both hetero and homo, are lumped together, losing specificity!)

 

This one gets minus 3 accuracy points.

Tynd:   neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind

KJV:   nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Douay:   nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind

ASV:   nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men

Darby:   nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men

 

"Abusers of themselves with mankind", what does that mean? Those who punch themselves in the face, or eat too much, along with the rest of humanity?

"Liers with mankind"? Someone who lies down like the rest of humanity?

"Abusers of themselves with men"? People who join male adults in punching themselves in the face? Or cutting themselves with stones? Very vague.  I reject this group of renderings.  They are very misleading.  Minus two accuracy points.

Wey:   nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime

CBW:   guilty of unnatural sexual vice

MLB:  nor partakers in homosexuality

RSV:   sexual perverts

Ampl:   those who participate in homosexuality

REB:   sexual pervert

GW:   homosexuals

ESV:    men who practice homosexuality

 

I reject this above group of renderings, because they do not distinguish between the two different Greek words. (True the ESV explains their interpretation of the two Greek words in the footnotes, as the passive vs. active homosexual actors, but that should have been shown in the scripture text itself, if it is really true.)  They are also too unspecific.  The Message rendering is really bad. And take the RSV and REB, "sexual perverts." That is just too broad and unspecific. A heterosexual adult male who prefers 8 year old girl sexual partners, is a sexual pervert, but not what is meant by these Greek words.  Minus two accuracy points.  The ESV I give credit for showing that males specifically are being referred to here, so for the ESV, minus only 1 point.

YLT:   nor effeminate, nor sodomites

JB:   catamites, sodomites

NKJV:   nor homosexuals, nor sodomites

NRSV:   male prostitutes, sodomites

 

I reject this above group of renderings, because the word "sodomite" is too misleading.  Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary defines "sodomite" as "one who practices sodomy." And the word "sodomy" includes acts that are not homosexual per se, such as oral sex performed on a man, including by a woman, and anal sex between a man and a woman, and bestiality. Black's Law Dictionary defines "sodomy" as follows: "While variously defined in state criminal statutes, is generally oral or anal copulation between humans, or between humans and animals." These several and various acts are called "sodomy" today, but are not what is meant by these Greek words specifically. Therefore, the rendering "sodomite" is not accurate.  Minus one accuracy point.

 

Phil     neither the effeminate, the pervert

BBE    or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men

CEV:   or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual

 

I reject the third rendering, because "behaves like a homosexual" is too vague. To many people, this might mean, a person who is limp-wristed or something. No, sexuality specifically is what is meant. Again, the word "pervert" is just too general and unspecific.  Minus one accuracy point each.  The BBE rendering is too vague.  For example, does "less than a man" mean he has been emasculated?  If so, that would not be the meaning of the Greek word μαλᾶκός -  malakos.  And "makes a wrong use of men" is not specific enough.  Minus 1 point.

 

NIV:   nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

TNIV:  nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

NAB:   nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

NET:   passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

 

The above renderings raise the question, whether it is okay to be a homosexual, as long as you are not a "homosexual offender" or a "practicing homosexual." In other words, do you have to actually perform a homosexual sexual act, to be committing the sin of homosexuality, or is the very lust for a person of the same sex, the sin of homosexuality? I am persuaded that the latter is the case, in view of Jesus' teachings, that a heterosexual does not have to actually have coitus with someone to have committed adultery, but rather, for example, if a man looks upon a woman who is not his wife, for the purpose of lusting for her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The Biblical principle is, that the lust itself is the sin against God's creation and purpose, not only the act of carrying out that lust. In the same way, the desire for the person of the same sex, this desire itself is a sin against God's purposes and creation; the acting out of the homosexual lust is not required for there to be committed the sin of homosexuality.

 

On the other hand, if by "practicing homosexual," the distinction meant is whether the homosexuality is a persistent, habitual, unrepentant lifestyle, versus someone who has the orientation and lust, and may occasionally succumb to it, but does call it sin, and does repent, and keep getting up, and trying again in his struggle against the unnatural desire, and fights the good fight of the faith, then this meaning I can accept.

 

But there is still something that troubles many Christians about this rendering.  Should not the same word "practicing" be added then to all the other sins in this list?  Like this, "practicing fornicators, practicing idolaters, practicing adulterers" etc.  Indeed, that really IS what it means.  Because if fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God, then none of us will, because we all stumble in these areas some time.  So what is disturbing, is the seeming favoritism being shown to the sin of homosexuality in these renderings.

 

Moreover, specific examples can be given of homosexuals quoting these translations to prove that their orientation is not wrong, as long as they are not "offending."  Or "practicing."  Therefore, these renderings I cannot say are adequate.  Minus 1 point.

 

JNT:   who engage in active or passive homosexuality

 

This differentiates between active and passive male homosexuality. The NET seems to agree with this, and the ESV also mentions this in its footnotes. This distinction I am not going to cover here.  I am not convinced that these renderings are correct.  But at least they condemn homosexuality, as this passage in fact does.

NASB:   nor effeminate, nor homosexuals
Recov:   nor effeminate nor homosexuals
NLT:   male prostitutes, homosexuals
WEB:   nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
ISV:   male prostitutes, homosexuals
HCSB: male prostitutes, homosexuals

The above renderings are adequate.

NCV:   those who are male prostitutes; or men who have sexual relations with other men

This is as clear and accurate as you can get, regarding the word ἀρσενοκοίτης - arsenokoiths.  Plus one accuracy point.

 

CONCLUSION: Which translations are "soft on homosexuality."  This is in response to a recent conversation.   The King James Version is the rendering that is softest on homosexuality.  Because it does not even name homosexuality in this list of sins.  Readings like this are one of the reasons that the King James Version is no longer adequate as the standard English translation for every day use in churches and home.

 

 

Luke 1:49b-50

 

καὶ ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 50 καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν

and - holy - the - name - of him - and - the - mercy - of him - into - ages - and - ages - to the - ones fearing - him

 

In this passage, it is interesting to see what the translators do with the elided verbs (omitted as implied), and with sentence division, and with the preposition εἰς.

 

Tynd  and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him throughout all generations.

KJV     and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

Douay            and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

ASV    And holy is his name. And his mercy is unto generations and generations On them that fear him.

Darby and holy is his name; and his mercy to generations and generations to them that fear him.

YLT    And holy [is] His name, and His kindness [is] to generations of generations, To those fearing him,

Wey    Holy is his name! and His compassion is, generation after generation, Upon those who fear Him.

CBW  And holy is His name! He shows His mercy from age to age To those who fear him.

Phil     oh, holy is his Name! Truly, his mercy rests on those who fear him in every generation.

MLB   His name is holy and His mercy is to those who reverence Him through all generations.

BBE    and holy is his name.  His mercy is for all generations in whom is the fear of him.

NASB And holy is His name. and his mercy is upon generation after generation toward those who fear him

JB        Holy is his name, and his mercy reaches from age to age for those who fear him.

RSV    and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.

ESV    and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.

NKJV And holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.

NIV    -holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.

TNIV  -holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.

Recov and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations, unto those who fear Him.

NAB   and holy is his name. His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.

REB    His name is holy, his mercy sure from generation to generation toward those who fear him.

NRSV and holy is his name. His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation

JNT     Indeed, his name is holy; and in every generation he has mercy on those who fear him.

NCV   His name is holy. God will show his mercy forever and ever to those who worship and serve him.

Mess   whose very name is holy, set apart from all the others. His mercy flows in wave after wave on those who are in awe before him.
CEV    and his name is holy. He always shows mercy to everyone who worships him.

NLT    For he, the Mighty One, is holy, his mercy goes on from generation to generation, to all who fear him.

WEB   Holy is his name. His mercy is for generations of generations on those who fear him.

ISV      His name is holy. His mercy lasts from generation to generation for those who fear him.

NET    and holy is his name; his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.

GW     His name is holy. For those who fear him, his mercy lasts throughout every generation.

Alex    the One who is Omniscient and [whose] name is Holy. And His Grace for centuries, ...over those generations who submit to Him.

Wilt    holy is his name. His mercy from age to age to those who fear him

HCSB  and holy is his name. His mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear Him

DRP    And holy will be his name, and his mercy to those who fear him, into age after age.

 

I think that the context preceding this passage sets things in the future. Like this:

So behold: all the ages after now will consider me blessed, 49because the Mighty One did great things for me. And holy will be his name, 50and his mercy to those who fear him, into age after age.

In my translation of Luke, I have extensive footnotes on Luke chapter one. That can be downloaded from another page on this web site.

 

This passage is difficult to translate.  But I do give plus one accuracy point to those translations that recognized that the Greek phrase εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς in the Septuagint means "for ever and ever"  into the future.  This chapter of Luke, like the Septuagint, is "Jewish Greek."  So, plus one accuracy point each, to NCV, BBE and DRP.  The rendering of the BBE is not bad: for all generations.  That could be future; it is ambiguous.

 

 

Mark 12:29

 

κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

 

Douay            the Lord thy God is one God

 

Strange.  Must be because of the Latin Vulgate? "Thy" instead of "our;" "God" instead of Jehovah;" and it says "one God" instead of  "the only."  Minus 4 accuracy points.

 

Tynd.             The Lord God, is one Lord
KJV                 The Lord our God is one Lord:
Darby             the Lord our God is one Lord;
CBW              the Lord our God is one Lord,
WEY               The Lord our God is one Lord;

MLB               The Lord our God is one Lord,
BBE                the Lord our God is one Lord;
NASB             THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
Recov.            the Lord our God is one Lord;
ASV                The Lord our God, the Lord is one:
YLT                the Lord is our God, the Lord is one;
RSV                The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
ESV                The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
Phil                 the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
NKJV             Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
NIV,TNIV     Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
NRSV             the Lord our God, the Lord is one;
JNT                 Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Mess               The Lord your God is one;
NET                the Lord our God is one.
WEB               the Lord our God, the Lord is one
ISV                 the Lord our God is one Lord
HCSB             The Lord our God is one Lord.

You would think these above renderings were written by Muslims who were reacting to the doctrine of the Trinity.  The ones that say something like, The Lord our God is one Lord, are nonsensical.  How could a god be more than one lord anyway?  It answers a question that would never be asked.  It addresses a problem that never existed.  Same with the renderings "The Lord is one."  That was not an issue.  The issue was "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."  The above renderings are also nonsensical, because the original admonishment was not saying "Lord" at all, but Jehovah.  To show you what I mean, let's replace in these translations the word Jehovah instead of Lord, (as the Hebrew really says) and they would read like this: "Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah"?!  Are there gods anywhere that are two or more Jehovah's?  Those renderings are so silly.  The above renderings are simply not accurate.  They also lead the reader into issues that were never meant to be raised by this declaration.  They are a bad case of following tradition and setting aside the words of God.  Minus 3 accuracy points.

 

JB                    the Lord our God is the one Lord,
NAB               The Lord our God is Lord alone!
REB                the Lord our God is the one Lord,
NCV               The Lord our God is the only Lord.
CEV                you have only one Lord and God.
NLT                The Lord our God is the one and only Lord.
GW                 the Lord our God is the only Lord
Alex                The Lord God is the only Lord.

 

These are much closer.  But they still don't show that the original Hebrew that is being quoted, is not saying "lord" at all, but the Tetragrammaton, יהוה,   YHWH.  Minus 1 accuracy point.

 

DRP                Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone.

 

This last one is the real meaning.

 

 

John 7:22

 

διὰ τοῦτο - DIA TOUTO

 

CBW              and yet you are all dumbfounded!  22 Then Moses gave

NRSV             and all of you are astonished.  22 Moses gave

NCV               and you are all amazed.  22 Moses gave

Mess               getting all upset, wondering what I'm up to.  22 Moses prescribed

NLT                and you were offended.  22 But you work on the Sabbath, too, when you obey Moses'

ISV                 and all of you are astonished. 22 Moses gave

 

The above renderings do not translate the Greek words DIA TOUTO.  This is not acceptable.  Minus two accuracy points each.

 

Tynd              and ye all marvel.  22 Moses therefore gave

KJV                 and ye all marvel.  22 Moses therefore gave

Douay            and you all wonder:  22 Therefore, Moses gave

Darby             and ye all wonder.  22 Therefore Moses gave

YLT                and ye all wonder,  22 because of this, Moses hath given

NKJV             and you all marvel.  22 Moses therefore gave

NASB             and you all marvel.  22 On this account Moses has given  (1977 edition)

NASB             and you all marvel.  22 For this reason Moses has given (1995 updated edition)

Recov.            and you all marvel.  22 For the same reason Moses gave

Alex                and all of you are amazed!  22. This is why Moses gave  (from an Aramaic source text)

 

I do not follow the logical flow of thought of Jesus' discourse, if these renderings are correct.  "You are amazed that I healed on the Sabbath.  Therefore Moses gave you circumcision and you circumcise on the sabbath..."  Unless Jesus was equating healing a lame man, with cutting off a man's foreskin.  But in fact, Jesus was CONTRASTING them.  "I made a man WHOLE during the sabbath.  So why is it you can have the practice of CUTTING PART OF A MAN OFF during the Sabbath, and yet be angry at me for making the whole man whole during the sabbath?"

 

I reject the above renderings, as making no sense.  Minus one accuracy point each.

 

 

Wey    and you are all full of wonder.  22 Consider therefore. Moses gave

NIV    and you are all astonished.  22 Yet, because Moses gave

TNIV  and you are all astonished.  22 Yet, because Moses gave

 

REB                and you are all taken aback.  22 But consider: Moses gave

NET                and you are all amazed.  22 However, because Moses gave

HCSB             Jesus answered. 22 Consider this: Moses has given you circumcision

Pick                “I did one work, and you all marvel. 22 Consider this: Moses gave you circumcision

 

I don't like the above renderings, because they add words that are not in the Greek, such as "consider," and "yet," and "but," and "however."   Minus one accuracy point each.

 

 

CEV                and it amazed you.  22 Moses commanded

I don't like those renderings, because the first does not translate the Greek word TOUTO, and the second does not translate the Greek word DIA.  Minus one accuracy point each.

 

 

ASV    and ye all marvel because thereof. 22 Moses hath given
Beck   and you're all surprised about it.  22 Moses gave you
RSV    and you all marvel at it.  22 Moses gave you circumcision
ESV    and you all marvel at it.  22 Moses gave you circumcision
Phil     and you are all amazed at it.  22 Moses gave you
JB        and you are all surprised by it.  22 Moses ordered you
BBE    and you are all surprised at it.  22 Moses gave you circumcision
JNT     and because of this, all of you are amazed.  22 Moses gave
WEB   and you all marvel because of it. 22 Moses has given
GW     and all of you are surprised by it.  22 Moses gave

NAB   all of you are amazed 22 because of it.  Moses gave

 

The above renderings interpret the words DIA TOUTO as being part of the clause in verse 21, explaining why they were upset.  This is a possibly valid interpretation.  But if you are going to translate it that way, at least be like the NAB, which kept the verse number in the right place.  By the way, there is no variation between the Greek textual traditions here.  All the Greek manuscripts have the words DIA TOUTO, and they all have them at the beginning of verse 22.  (Not that the verse number matters very much, since the verse numbers were not inspired, and were not part of what the apostle John originally wrote down.)

MLB   you all marvel about it.  22 Because Moses established

 

This one renders TOUTO twice; once in each verse!  This is not allowed.  Minus one point.

 

 

DRP                and you are all appalled.  22 Why is it Moses gave

 

I agree with this rendering, for the reasons stated previously:  Jesus was contrasting his own acts of making a man whole during the sabbath, with their practice of circumcising during the sabbath.  "I made a man WHOLE during the sabbath.  So why is it you can have the practice of CUTTING PART OF A MAN OFF during the Sabbath, and yet be angry at me for making the whole man whole during the sabbath?"

 

 

John 7:39

 

οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα 

for the Spirit was not yet ___ (something must be supplied in the blank?)

 

The above were probably the original words John wrote, and since then, copyists of the Greek manuscripts have added various words in order to clarify the meaning.  Some copyists added the word "Holy" to Spirit, and other copyists added both the words "holy" and "been given."  Others added just the word "been given," and others added the words "upon them," and some both the words "holy" and "upon them." And various translators have supplied various words, and rightly so, since the sense requires it.  It is very interesting to me that Tyndale made the same textual criticism decision as some current translators, including myself, did, about what words originally followed the word spirit.  (I came up with my rendering before I was aware of what Tyndale did, by the way.)

 

Darby             for Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

YLT                for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

JB                    for there was no Spirit as yet because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

NRSV             for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

NAB               There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

Recov.            for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

The above renderings are inaccurate for obvious reasons.  The Holy Spirit certainly existed.  The Holy Spirit is mentioned as being at work throughout the gospels and the Old Testament prior to the time of this verse.  This is an absurd rendering.  Minus three points.

 

GW     The Spirit was not yet evident, as it would be after Jesus had been glorified.

 

Not so.  The Holy Spirit was quite evident in the lives of many people.  Minus two points.

 

Douay            for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
KJV     for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.
Wey    for the Spirit was not bestowed as yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.
RSV    for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Phil     The Holy Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified

MLB   For as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Ampl. For the [Holy] Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (raised to honor).
REB    for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.
JNT     the Spirit had not yet been given, because Yeshua had not been glorified.
ESV    for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NIV    Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

TNIV  Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

BBE    the Spirit had not been given then, because the glory of Jesus was still to come.
NET    for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
WEB   for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus wasn't yet glorified.
NLT    But the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory.
NCV   The Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been raised to glory.  

CEV    The Spirit had not yet been given to anyone, since Jesus had not yet been given his full glory.

Mess   The Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.
HCSB for the Spirit had not yet been received, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. 

 

These either followed an inferior Greek manuscript basis, or didn't indicate that the words "had been given" or "had been received" were supplied by the translators.  Minus one point.

 

ASV    for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NASB for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
NKJV for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

 

These supplied the word "given" in italics, as implied from the context, and let us know by the means of italics that this word was merely their interpretation.

 

 

Tynd  For the holy ghost was not yet there, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.
CBW  for the Spirit had not yet come, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

ISV     For the Spirit was not yet present, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

DRP    For the Spirit was not yet present, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

These followed the correct textual basis, and correctly interpreted the verb "eimi" in the continuous aspect as meaning present with or accompanying.  Plus one point.  Particular praise to Tyndale for choosing the correct Greek textual basis in his day!

 

I suppose one could argue that these latter are not accurate either, that the Holy Spirit was present, but not endowed on people the same way as after Pentecost.  Still, since the Bible before Pentecost says the Holy Spirit "came upon" someone, that means He was not right there present all the time, just "came upon" for special occasions.

 

 

John 11:11

 

ταῦτα εἶπεν, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει αὐτοῖς- TAUTA EIPEN KAI META TOUTO LEGEI AUTOIS

these things - he said - and - after - this - he is saying - to them

 

This seeming redundancy is a device to portray a touching gravity and emotional presence to the scene.  There are no unnecessary words.  This effect is accentuated when there is a period, and a pause, and another sentence started.  This is a device used in English also.  The present tense of "he is saying" is another device to give a sense of intimacy, and to give the reader a sense of being right there and feeling the moment.  The wording "he is saying to them" is perfectly colloquial in English also.  There is no compelling reason not to word it that way.

 

NLT    Then he said

CEV    Then he told them

(1)  These fail to translate so many words! I understand the concept of meaning equivalence, but surely "Then he said" does not transfer all of the meaning from the Greek.  Who did he say it to, for example?  Can there really be a good rationale for dropping that out?  (2) These do not reflect the pause.  (3) These do not reflect the present tense of "says."  NLT minus four accuracy points, CEV minus three.

 

REB    After saying this he added

JB        He said that and then added

 

(1) These do not reflect the pause. (2) These do not tell us to whom he said it, even though the Greek does tell us.  Minus two accuracy points.

 

Tynd.             This said he, and after that, he said unto them

MLB               He said this to them, and then added

RSV                Thus he spoke, and then he said to them

ESV                After saying these things, he said to them

NKJV             These things He said, and after that He said to them

Recov.            He said these things, and after this He said to them

NAB               He said this, and then told them

NRSV             After saying this, he told them

JNT                 Yeshua said these things, and afterwards he said to the talmidim

Mess               He said these things, and then announced

WEB               He said these things, and after that, he said to them

GW                 After Jesus said this, he told his disciples

HCSB             He said this, and then He told them

Pick                Having said these things He says to them

 

Really not quite enough of a pause, and not showing the present tense of "saying" to them.  Minus one point.

 

KJV                 These things said he: and after that he said to them

Douay            These things he said; and after that he said to them
BBE                These things said he: and after that he said to them

 

This is more like it as far as the pause- these place a colon or a semicolon between the sentences.  A full stop would be better.  These still do not reflect the present tense.  Minus one point.

 

 

NCV   After Jesus said this, he added

NET    After he said this, he added

 

I'm not sure if "he added" is supposed to reflect the present tense.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt there, but, there is still not enough of a demarcation between the two sentences.  These also do not translate "to them."  Minus two points.

 

Wey                He said this, and afterwards He added

CBW              He said this, and after that He added

 

At least with these there is a little more separation between the two sentences.  But not enough, and not clear enough an indication of the present tense.  These also do not translate "to them."  Minus 2.

 

NASB             This He said, and after that He *said to them

NIV,TNIV     After he had said this, he went on to tell them

 

These at least reflect the present tense in some way or other.  The NASB signals it with the asterisk, and the NIV indicates their interpretation of the progressive aspect of the verb "to say" by saying "went on to tell."

 

Phil                 Jesus spoke these words; then after a pause he said to them
ISV                 These were the things he said. Then after this he told them

 

Even though these do not reflect the present tense, I give them lots of credit for placing a full stop after the first sentence, or in the case of Phillips, outright telling us there is a pause.  A wash.

 

 

ASV                These things spake he: and after this he saith unto them

Darby             These things said he; and after this he says to them

YLT                These things he said, and after this he saith to them

DRP                He said these things.  And after this, he is saying to them

 

This is what we should see.  Two fairly separate sentences, and the word "say" in the progressive aspect.  Plus one accuracy point each.

 

 

 

Matthew 5:18

 

ἰῶτα	ἓν	ἢ	μία	κεραία	οὐ	μὴ	παρέλθῃ
iota	one	or	one	serif	not	at all	pass away

 

A serif is a little horn or projection on a letter, a small stroke of a pen. Today we use this word especially in connection with fonts; for example, sans serif fonts are Arial, Helvetica, and Geneva, and serif fonts are Times New Roman, New York, etc. In the Semitic languages such as Babylonian (Chaldean), Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, sometimes such a serif changes the meaning of the writing, or changes the letter.

 

In the time of Jesus and the apostles, Hebrew was almost a dead language. It was known mainly by the priests of Jerusalem, and by rabbis and theological students.  Israelites had learned the languages of their conquerors, which was the Aramaic language from their captivity in Assyria, and Greek. 

 

There is an easy way to remember who the conquerors of Israel were, and that is the image in Daniel's dream.  First was Babylon.  The Babylonian language was already close to Hebrew, since Abraham was Babylonian.  Next was the Persians.  The Persians were quite tolerant of the Jewish religion and language, and in fact, Cyrus the Persian issued a decree protecting the religious freedom of his subjects.  So the Jews did not have to learn Persian.  Next were the Greeks.  The Greek conquerors were quite another kind, and they outlawed the Jewish language and scriptures, forcing the Jews to learn and use Greek as their language.  One of the Greek rulers, Antiochus Epiphanes, is the whole reason the Jews have the holiday of Hanukah, in celebration of purifying the temple after regaining it from the Greeks.  Antiochus had ordered a pig to be sacrificed in the temple.  So this is why so many Jews knew Greek in Jesus' time.  Next, there was the Romans.  They were actually also quite tolerant of the conquered cultures and languages, including of Palestine.  They allowed the Jews to keep their religion, and languages, and even much of their religious law, even allowing the Jewish religious authorities to have temple police or soldiers.

 

In "Galilee of the Gentiles" especially, some people read the Septuagint, and also when they went to synagogue, the Bible may have been read in the Hebrew, but then also read in what was called Aramaic "targums" or paraphrases, for the benefit of those who didn't know Hebrew. Thus, believers of Jesus' day had three translations of the Bible to choose from. And they were all considered to be holy scripture.

 

This in Matthew 5:18 about "not one iota, not one serif" is a very interesting thing Jesus said, because by it He acknowledges the situation that in his time, the scriptures were available in both the Greek and Semitic versions.  The iota was the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet, especially when "subscript." And in the Semitic languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, one little serif could change it from one letter of the alphabet to another.  I believe that Jesus is declaring that both the Greek and the Hebrew Bibles were holy scripture that would not pass away until fulfilled.  His apostles certainly believed this of the Septuagint, since they clearly quoted the Septuagint as holy, immutable scripture.

It should be instructive to King James Onlyists that these three, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures, differed among each other far more than do the NIV and the KJV do, for example, yet all three were considered to be holy scripture.  Unfortunately, the solution KJV Onlyists have for this is that they deny the existence of the Septuagint during the time of Christ.  But this is in defiance of all historical truth.

 

 

Mess.	...law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet.  Long after stars burn out and earth wears out,
	This (1) does not translate iota.  (2) It does not translate serif. (3,4) Twice it does not translate the numeral "one."  (5) Does not translate the emphatic negatives.  (6,7,8) It changes the sequence around so much, it is not recognizable as the words of Jesus.  Minus 8 accuracy points.
NLT	even the smallest detail will remain
	This (1) does not translate iota.  (2) It does not translate serif. (3,4) Twice it does not translate the numeral "one."  (5) It combines two separate details into one.  (6)  It does not have the emphatically negative statement.  (7) It has an emphatically positive statement where none exists in the Greek.  Minus 7 accuracy points.
GW	neither a period nor a comma will disappear
	This (1) does not translate iota.  (2) It does not translate serif. (3,4) It twice does not translate the number "one."  (5) Does not translate the emphatic negatives. (6) Periods and commas are punctuation.  The original Hebrew and Greek writings did not have punctuation.  Jesus most certainly did not have punctuation in mind when he said this.  Minus 6 accuracy points.
CBW	heaven and earth would sooner pass away than the dotting of an 'i' or the crossing of a 't' from the law
	This (1) does not translate iota.  (2) It does not translate serif. (3,4) It twice does not translate the number "one."  (5) Does not translate the emphatic negatives. (6) Dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s are not letters with meaning.    Minus 6 accuracy points.
CEV	not even a period or comma will ever disappear
	This (1) does not translate iota.  (2) It does not translate serif. (3,4) It twice does not translate the number "one."  (5) Periods and commas are punctuation.  The original Hebrew and Greek writings did not have punctuation.  Jesus most certainly did not have punctuation in mind when he said this.  Minus 5 accuracy points.
NET	not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass
	(1,2) The words "smallest letter or stroke of a letter" don't indicate clearly enough the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time.  (3,4) It twice does not translate the number "one."  (5) The negative statement is not emphatic enough.  Minus 5 points.
NCV NAB NASB	not even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will be lost  not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass  not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass
	(1,2) The words "smallest letter or smallest part of a letter, etc." don't indicate the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time.  (3,4) It twice does not translate the number "one."  (5) The negative statement is not emphatic enough.  Minus 5 points.
NIV / TNIV BBE WEB	not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear  not the smallest letter or part of a letter will in any way be taken from  not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away
	(1,2) The words "smallest letter or stroke of a pen/letter, etc." don't indicate clearly enough the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time.  (3,4) It twice does not translate the number "one."  Minus 4 points.
HCSB	not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass
	(1,2) The words "smallest letter or stroke of a letter" don't indicate clearly enough the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time. (3) It only translates the number "one" once out of two.  (4) The negative statement is not emphatic enough.  Minus 4 points.
REB	not a letter, not a dot, will disappear
	(1) Does not translate iota.  (2,3) Twice does not translate the numeral "one."  (4) Negative statement not emphatic enough.  Minus 4 points.
JNT	not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass
	(1,2) Twice does not translate the numeral "one."  (3) Negative statement is not emphatic enough.  (4) While it is likely that the words "yodh, iota, and jot" are all the same word mutated by means of borrowing through different languages, this rendering seems to be a little Hebrew chauvinistic, ignoring the fact that the most used Bible of the world in Jesus' time was the Greek Septuagint.  Minus 4 points.
Tynd	one jot or one tittle shall not escape
	(1,2) The words jot and tittle don't indicate clearly enough the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time.  (3) This lacks the emphatic negatives.  Minus 3 points.  A tittle is a diacritical or puncutation mark.  But the original Hebrew had no diacritics or punctuation.
Phil	will not lose a single dot or comma
	(1,2) Does not translate iota or serif.  (3) Commas are punctuation.  The original Hebrew and Greek writings did not have punctuation.  Jesus most certainly did not have punctuation in mind when he said this. Minus 3 points.
Wey	not one iota or smallest detail will pass away
	(1) the words "smallest detail" do not indicate the Semitic languages. (2) it only translates the number "one" once out of two. (3) The negative statement is not emphatic enough.  Minus 3 points.
ISV	not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear
	(1,2) The words "letter or stroke of a letter" don't indicate clearly enough the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time. (3) The negative statement is not emphatic enough.  Minus 3 points.
NRSV	not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass
	(1,2) The words "letter, stroke of a letter" do not indicate the two families of languages.  (3) Negative statement not emphatic enough.  Minus 3 points.
Douay KJV ASV NKJV	one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass  one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass  one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away  one jot or one tittle will by no means pass
	(1,2) The words jot and tittle don't indicate clearly enough the two families of languages in which the scriptures existed at that time.  These are both obsolete words.  Minus 2 accuracy points.
RSV ESV	not an iota, not a dot, will pass  not an iota, not a dot, will pass
	(1,2) This rendering twice does not translate the numeral "one."  (3) The negative statement is not emphatic enough. I like this rendering a lot, though, because it does show the possible Greek/Hebrew aspect.  So, bottom line is minus 2 accuracy points.
Amp	not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass
	(1) This does not translate iota.  (2) Negative statement not emphatic enough.  Minus 2 points.
YLT	one iota or one tittle may not pass away
	(1) The word "tittle" does not clearly enough indicate the Semitic family of languages.  (2) The negative statement is not emphatic enough.  What does "may not pass away" mean?  Possibly not?  Young's Literal Translation does not accurately translate the aorist throughout.  Minus 2 points.
JB	not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear
	(1) Does not translate iota.  (2) Negative statement is not emphatic enough.  Minus 2 points.
MLB	not one iota or one projection of a letter will be dropped
	"Projection of a leter" does not distinguish Semitic languages from others.  This does not make the negative statement emphatic enough.  Minus 2 points.
Darby	one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass
	(1) The word "tittle" does not indicate clearly enough the Semitic languages as distinguished from Greek.    Minus 1 point.
Recov.	one iota or one serif shall by no means pass away
DRP	not one iota, not one serif, will by any means pass away
	These are correct.  The Recovery Version rendering sounds awkward though.

 

 

John 15:6

 

ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη, καὶ
if - not - someone - abiding - in - me - he is thrown - out - like - the - branch - even the one which is - withered – and

 

συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται
they gather - them - and - in - the - fire - they put - and - it is burned

 

There is mainly one thing that I'd like to see here: that we are talking about only one branch, and one particular branch, that branch already described in the setup in verse two: "Every branch in me bearing no fruit, he removes."  You see, the branch is removed because it already was not abiding, it already was unfruitful, and it already was withered, before it is removed.  People don't just throw branches out.  They throw them out for a reason, like that they are withered in the first place.  It is not saying people are in the habit of throwing green branches out, and then the branches wither.  When a branch is not abiding in the sap, not only would it be unfruitful, it would also wither.  In fact, "unfruitful," and "withered," are synonyms in the Bible;  they are not two separate processes.  So I will grade by what article is before the word "branch." 

 

KJV     If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

ASV    If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

NASB If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Beck   If anyone doesn't stay in Me, he's thrown away like a branch and dries up.  Such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

JB        Anyone who does not remain in me is like a branch that has been thrown away - he withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire, and they are burned.

RSV    If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

ESV    If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

NKJV If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

NIV    If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

TNIV  If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Recov.            If one does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is dried up; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

NAB   Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.

NRSV Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

NCV   If any do not remain in me, they are like a branch that is thrown away and then dies.  People pick up dead branches, throw them into the fire, and burn them.

NLT    Anyone who parts from me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers.  Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned.

NET    If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up, and they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

ISV     Unless a person abides in me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up. People gather such branches and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

WEB   If a man doesn't remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

JNT     Unless a person remains united with me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up.  Such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, where they are burned up.

Mess   Anyone who separates from me is deadwood, gathered up and thrown on the bonfire.

CEV    If you don't stay joined to me, you will be thrown away.  You will be like dry branches that are gathered up and burned in a fire.

GW     Whoever doesn't live in me is thrown away like a branch and dries up.  Branches like this are gathered, thrown into a fire, and burned.

HCSB If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

 

The above renderings are inaccurate on two counts.  Minus 2 points.

 

 

Tynd  If a man bide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered: and men gather it and cast it into the fire, and it burneth.

Douay            If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth

CBW  If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is thrown away as a mere branch and is dried up; then it is picked up and thrown into the fire and burned up.

Phil     The man who does not share my life is like a branch that is broken off and withers away.  He becomes just like the dry sticks that men collect and use for firewood.

Pick    If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown out, like a branch, and dries up; well they gather such and throw them into the fire, and he is burned up.

 

A branch instead of the branch.  Minus 1 point.

 

 

Darby Unless any one abide in me he is cast out as the branch, and is dried up; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

YLT    if any one may not remain in me, he was cast forth without as the branch, and was withered, and they gather them, and cast to fire, and they are burned;

 

They are burned instead of it/he is burned.  The above renderings get docked one accuracy point each.

 

 

Wey    If any one does not continue in me, he is like the unfruitful branch which is at once thrown away and then withers up.  Such branches they gather up and throw into the fire and they are burned.

 

This one misses on a few points, but I give it a lot of credit for explicitly recognizing that "the" branch being talked about is the unfruitful branch of verse 2.  But, it still shows the branch withering AFTER removing from the vine, and it still  has "they" in the plural.  Minus 1.

 

 

 BBE   If a man does not keep himself in me, he becomes dead and is cut off like a dry branch; such branches are taken up and put in the fire and burned.

 

Wrong on a branch, pretty good on such branches.  It also has the sequence of death and cut-off correct.

 

 

REB    Anyone who does not dwell in me is thrown away like a withered branch.  The withered branches are gathered up, thrown on the fire, and burnt.

Alex    For if a person does not adhere to me, they are cast out.  Like a branch that withers, [which] they cut off and throw into the fire to burn.

 

These at least accurately show that the branch is withered before it is removed.  Also, it is more in line with the culture, that the vinedressers used such branches for firewood in their stoves.  The Phillips also recognized this.  It is not so much talking about hell, or a wasteful bonfire.  People in a semi-desert land, would not waste precious wood by burning them in a bonfire.  The Greek word BALLW does not always mean "throw" or "cast."  Sometimes it just means "put," as in "No one puts new wine in old wineskins.  You can't really "throw" or "cast" wine into a wineskin.  I guess you can "throw" wood into a stove, depending on the size of its opening.

 

 

DRP    If someone does not abide in me, he is thrown aside like the branch that is withered; they gather such and put them in the fire; and it is burned.

 

The reason THE branch is thrown away, is that it was ALREADY dried up.  That is the reason for its being thrown away.  It doesn't dry up BECAUSE it was thrown away.

 

 

Luke 22:2

 

ἐζήτουν - οἱ - ἀρχιερεῖς - καὶ - οἱ - γραμματεῖς - τὸ - πῶς - ἀνέλωσιν - αὐτόν, - ἐφοβοῦντο - γὰρ - τὸν λαόν

were seeking - the - chief priests - and - the - Torah scholars - the - how - they might put to death - him - they were fearing - you see - the people

 

This is a passage in the New Testament most dependent on the linear aspect of the Greek verb.  The passage does not make sense without it.

 

 

KJV     the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.

ASV    the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death; for they feared the people.

Darby the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
Phil     fear of the people made the chief priests and scribes try desperately to find a way of getting rid of Jesus

WEB   The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death, for they feared the people.

NKJV the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people.

 

These above renderings (1) do not show the continuous aspect of "seeking"  (2) indicate a false causation for seeking to kill Jesus  (3) do not show the continuous aspect of "fearing."  Minus three accuracy points.

 

 

JNT     the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers began trying to find some way to get rid of Yeshua, because they were afraid of the people.

This rendering at least attempts to deal with the continuous aspect of "seeking," by interpreting it as an "inceptive imperfect."  Incorrectly, but I give it credit for trying.  But, it (1) indicates a false causation for seeking to kill Jesus, and (2) does not show the continuous aspect of "fearing."  Minus two accuracy points.

 

 

YLT    the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they may take him up, for they were afraid of the people.

CBW  the high priests and the scribes continued to seek how they might put Him to death, for they were afraid of the people.

NASB the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people.

JB        the chief priests and the scribes were looking for some way of doing away with him, because they mistrusted the people.

RSV    the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death; for they feared the people.

ESV    the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people.

NIV,TNIV     the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people.

Recov.  the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to do away with Him, for they feared the people.

NAB   the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to put him to death, for they were afraid of the people.

REB    the chief priests and the scribes were trying to devise some means of doing away with him; for they were afraid of the people.

NRSV The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to put Jesus to death, for they were afraid of the people.

NCV   leading priests and teachers of the law were trying to find a way to kill Jesus, because they were afraid of the people.

CEV    chief priests and the teachers of the law of Moses were looking for a way to get rid of Jesus, because they were afraid of what the people might do.

ISV     the high priests and the scribes were looking for a way to put him to death, for they were afraid of the crowd.

NET    The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to put Jesus to death; for they were afraid of the people.
HCSB  The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to put Him to death, because they were afraid of the people.

 

The above group (1) indicate a false causation for seeking to kill Jesus, and (2) do not show the continuous aspect of "fearing."  Minus two accuracy points.

 

 

Tyndl and the high Priests and Scribes sought how to kill him, but they feared the people.
Douay  And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put Jesus to death, but they feared the people.

Wey    and the High Priests and the Scribes were contriving how to destroy Him.  But they feared the people.
Mess   The high priests and religion scholars were looking for a way to do away with Jesus but, fearful of the people, they were also looking for a way to cover their tracks.

NLT    The leading priests and teachers of religious law were actively plotting Jesus' murder.  But they wanted to kill him without starting a riot, a possibility they greatly feared.

GW     The chief priests and the scribes were looking for some way to kill Jesus.  However, they were afraid of the people.

 

I have found no grammatical or lexical authority for a purely adversative meaning of gar - GAR, as the above group of renderings translate it.

 

Perhaps The Message and the New Living Translation see an ellipsis implied in the Luke passage.  Perhaps that is why they supply so many English words that are not indicated in the Greek.  I don't see an ellipsis.

 

I note that none of the above translations conveys the imperfect aspect of the Greek verb for "fearing," that is, the leaders were still fearing the people; their fear was "imperfect," that is, ongoing.  Yet, I give them one point for not accepting the nonsensical result of leaving the GAR as "for or because."  Minus one point each.  Except for the NLT and Message; they add way too many words not in the Greek.  Minus two points each for the NLT and Message.

 

 

BBE    And the chief priests and the scribes were looking for a chance to put him to death, but they went in fear of the people.

 

I compliment the BBE for putting both verbs in the imperfect tense.  Though the translation of gar as but is incorrect.  Minus ¸ point.

 

 

DRP    and the chief priests and the Torah scholars were still yet looking for a way to put him to death, because they were still yet fearing the people.

 

The reason Luke had the verbs in the incompleted aspect, is because he had previously said the same thing.  Here, he is telling us that the same circumstance is ongoing

 

 

Mark 2:23b