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 ?? ?????? as an affirmative answer, such as “Yes,” or “You are right in saying..,” are not accurate. We are often told that ?? ?????? was an idiom in Greek for “Yes,” but I have seen no evidence of that. On the contrary, ALL instances of the phrase ?? ?????? 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 ?? ?????? 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 αὐτος very often (in a fashion customary since Homer) take the place of the 3^rd 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 ???? "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 ???? "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, ???? "sarx" is feminine and ???????? "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 ??? (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 ???. 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, ἐκ κοιλιας. 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) 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 ???.

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 ??? ?????? ??? ?????? 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, ????, 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 Â¸ 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

ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες, and ἤρξαντο always is paired with the infinitive

they began a way to make, plucking

NCV his followers began to pick some grain to eat

This (1) fails to translate ὁδὸν at all, (2) fails to translate ποιεῖν at all, (3) makes τίλλοντες the infinitive, rather than ποιεῖν, (4) makes τίλλοντες what began, instead of ποιεῖν. Minus 4 accuracy points.

NLT his disciples began breaking off heads of wheat

This (1) fails to translate ὁδὸν at all, (2) fails to translate ποιεῖν at all, (3) makes τίλλοντες what began, instead of ποιεῖν. Minus 3 accuracy points.

Tynd. and his disciples as they went in their way, began to pluck the ears of corn
WEY His disciples began to pluck the ears of wheat as they went.

KJV and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn

ASV and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears.

NKJV and as they went his disciples began to pluck the heads of grain

NIV,TNIV And as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain

JB and his disciples began to pick ears of corn as they went along

REB and as they went along, his disciples began to pluck ears of corn

WEB and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of grain

GW As the disciples walked along, they began to pick the heads of grain

These (1) fail to translate ποιεῖν at all, (2) make τίλλοντες the infinitive, rather than ποιεῖν, (3) make τίλλοντες what began, instead of ποιεῖν. Minus 3 points each.

Phil his disciples, as they made their way along, began to pick the ears of corn.
RSV and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain

ESV                and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain
NRSV             and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain
NET                and his disciples began to pick some grain as they made their way

These (1) make τίλλοντες the infinitive, rather than ποιεῖν, (2) make τίλλοντες what began, instead of ποιεῖν, (3) add a word not in the Greek, the possessive plural pronoun "their." Minus 3 points.

JNT and as they went along, his talmidim began picking heads of grain

This one (1) fails to translate ποιεῖν, (2) makes τίλλοντες what began, instead of ποιεῖν. Minus 2.

BBE while they were walking, his disciples took the heads of grain

CEV His disciples were picking grains of wheat as they went along

These (1) fail to translate ἀρχω at all, (2) fail to translate ποιεῖν at all. Minus 2.

ISV As they made their way, his disciples began picking the heads of grain

This (1) makes τίλλοντες what began, instead of ποιεῖν, (2) adds a word not in the Greek, the possessive plural pronoun "their" Minus 2.

Darby and his disciples began to walk on, plucking the ears.

This (1) fails to translate ποιεῖν - poiein at all, (2), makes walking the infinitive, what they "began" to do, rather that ποιεῖν - poiein, "to make." Minus 2.

Mess as his disciples made a path, they pulled off heads of grain.

This one (1) fails to translate ARCHW, began, (2) fails to make ποιεῖν - poiein an infinitive. Minus 2.

Recov. and his disciples began to go along, picking the ears of grain

This one (1) fails to translate ποιεῖν - poiein, (2) fails to translate ὁδὸν. Minus 2.

Douay his disciples began to go forward, and to pluck the ears of corn

This one (1) fails to translate ποιεῖν - poiein, (2) makes "pluck" an infinitive rather than a linear participle. Minus 2.

NASB and his disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain

HCSB His disciples began to make their way picking some heads of grain

These add the possessive pronoun "their." In the HCSB, the word "some" heads of grain is not really accurate. Minus 1.

YLT and his disciples began to make a way, plucking the ears

This is an accurate rendering of the Greek words and their forms, but loses a point for sense, since "make a way" does not make much sense. Should have at least rendered ὁδὸν as "path" or something that made more sense. Plus one point, minus one point; a wash.

CBW and his disciples started to make a path by pulling off the wheat heads

NAB his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain

These above simply treat the Greek words correctly according to their lexical meanings and their inflections. In addition, they propose a plausible semantic solution. These properties in a rendering, are not too much to ask! These renderings are possible accurate. Plus 1 point each.

DRP and his disciples began to practice a way, plucking the heads

I thought of rendering ὁδὸν as custom, "began to do a custom," except that the word "way" seems to be somewhat of a theme in the gospel of Mark.

Only the latter six translations in this case are half decent, since they interpret the infinitive ποιεῖν as what was started by ἀρχω. Ἀρχω when aorist aspect, middle voice, as in Mark 2:23, is ALWAYS followed by an infinitive in Mark, and the infinitive here is ποιεῖν. It is never used with a participle, which it would be if what was being begun was the plucking of heads.

Some say that the Greek words ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες, represent a "Latinism," meaning, "to make their way." A Latinism is a Latin idiom imported into Greek. But if that is a Latinism, why did not the Douay-Rheims see it that way? You see, the Douay-Rheims was a Roman Catholic translation based muchly on the Latin Vulgate. The NAB is also a Catholic translation, whose translators we can presume, know Latin. And they did not see this as a Latinism either. I reject the argument of Vincent and others, therefore, that this phrase in the Greek represents a Latinism.

What is happening is, Mark is explaining Jewish things to us, as he often does, thanks be to God. Mark is here editorializing, as he often does for the benefit of his non-Jewish readers. In this case he is explaining lest the readers think the disciples were doing something wrong like stealing or trespassing. Mark probably wanted them to know that this was an acceptable way of the Jews, the allowable Jewish practice of "plucking the heads," of Deuteronomy 23:25, "If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pluck the heads with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain."

It may well be that it was foreseen that this passage would be scandalous in the eyes of many future readers. That is, if Mark had not explained this for us in his gospel, then wherever this gospel is translated throughout the world, into the remotest tribal language, this passage would raise eyebrows among the tribespeople, as follows. "Jesus and his disciples would trespass and steal their neighbors' food!?" I assure you that the stealing (or sharing) of food is what many tribespeople and other Gentiles will zero in on, and continue to do so, even after you explain any Sabbath issue. Thus it is that Mark tells us that this practice was acceptable; it was a "path of legislation." It was an acceptable way, a Jewish way, a custom.

James 5:16

ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη

is powerful - the petition - of a/the righteous - is effective

This verse contains no Greek word such as man or brother, or even human being. It just says the fervent prayer of the righteous. The word for "righteous" simply being a word in a masculine declension. A translation, to be accurate, should not lead the reader to think it is talking about only persons of the male gender.

Tynd. a righteous man

KJV a righteous man

Douay a just man

YLT a righteous man

Wey a righteous man

ASV a righteous man

CBW an upright man

RSV a righteous man
Phil a good man's

BBE a good man

JB a good man

NKJV a righteous man

NASB a righteous man

NIV a righteous man

Recov. a righteous man

REB a good man's

WEB a righteous man

These above might lead the reader to think that persons who are not male, and not adult, are excluded. But that is not the meaning. Minus one accuracy point each.

Darby the righteous

NAB a righteous person

NRSV the righteous

JNT a righteous person

NLT a righteous person

NCV a believing person

CEV an innocent person

ISV a righteous person

NET a righteous person
TNIV a righteous person

GW those who have God's approval

Mess a person living right with God
ESV a righteous person
HCSB the righteous

Well, I would not do what the NCV, CEV, GW, and Mess did with the word "righteous," but I am giving them credit here for their gender accuracy.

Luke 9:23

Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεσθαι, ἀρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καθ' ἡμέραν, καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι

If - someone - wants - after - me - to come - he must deny - himself- and - take up - the - cross - of him - according to each - day - and - he must follow - me

Here is another passage with gender accuracy issues. I am going to give credit to renderings for trying to eliminate words such as he or his or him, but I will also dock them for causing confusion in some other area, like number. Number is also part of the semantic content requiring accuracy. Especially in this passage.

Mess Anyone who intends to come with me has to let me lead. You're not in the driver's seat- I am. Don't run from suffering; embrace it.

This is the word of Peterson, not the word of God. A cross is much worse suffering and self denial, than letting someone else drive your car! Minus 10 points

Tynd. if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily

KJV If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily

Douay If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily

ASV If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily

RSV If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily

The above renderings contain a completely unnecessary masculine word, "man." There is no Greek word in this verse for "man," or even human being. That alone is worth two demerits. So, minus 5 points each.

BBE If any man has a desire to come after me, let him give up all, and take up his cross every day

Minus two points for man, but one less masculine pronoun than the previous group. Minus 4 points.

Darby If any one will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me;

YLT If any one doth will to come after me, let him disown himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Wey If any one is desirous of following me, let him ignore self and take up his cross day by day

Phil If anyone wants to follow in my footsteps, he must give up all right to himself, carry his cross every day
NASB If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily

NASB If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily (1995 update)

JB If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross every day

NKJV If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily

NIV If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily

Recov.If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily

NAB If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily

JNT If anyone wants to come after me, let him say No' to himself, take up his execution-stake daily

WEB If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross

ISV If anyone wants to come with me, he must deny himself, pick up his cross every day

NET If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily

ESV If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily

HCSB If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me.

DRP If someone wants to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily

The above renderings contain three masculine pronouns, so minus 3 accuracy points each.

CBW If anyone chooses to be my disciple, he must say 'No' to self, put the cross on his shoulders daily

REB Anyone who wants to be a follower of mine must renounce self; day after day he must take up his cross

The above renderings contain only two masculine words. We have to give credit especially to Charles B. Williams, who published his in 1937. In this area, and several others, he was a pioneer, and influenced translations after his. Minus two points each.

NRSV If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily

TNIV Those who would be my disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

The above renderings eliminated all masculine pronouns, but muddied up the waters regarding number. If "they" take up "their cross," what does that mean? Are there five people who have one cross, or two to one cross? But Jesus is talking here about an individual decision and each having his own cross. I dock these renderings two points for inaccuracy as to number. Not to mention how awkward it sounds. Just adding the word "own" would improve this rendering, thus: "take up their own cross." But, the word for own is not in the Greek. Minus 2.

GW Those who want to come with me must say no to the things they want, pick up their crosses every day

This is a little better. But, the cross has still lost some individuality, and it is still vague as to how many crosses per person. Minus one point.

NCV If people want to follow me, they must give up the things they want. They must be willing to give up their lives daily

No. "Give up their lives" is not what Jesus said. He said "take up his cross." True, Jesus gave up his life, but it was on the cross specifically. He also carried his cross while STILL ALIVE for quite a while And are there not major differences between death on a cross, versus other kinds of death? Hello! There is just no excuse for this kind of rendering. Minus two points.

CEV If any of you want to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take your cross each day

NLT If any of you wants to be my follower, you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross daily

Well, I wouldn't word "deny yourself" like these did, but these renderings successfully eliminated all masculine words, and also kept the word cross in it, and kept it an individual cross carrying. Congratulations to these for solving some difficult translation problems. So I am not docking these any accuracy points. However, rhythm, beauty, those are other issues for which these might get docked. Also, changing words from 3rd person to 2nd person.

Some might say, "What would you think of using 'him/herself' and 'his/her cross'?" First, that would be very awkward to hear and read, second, visually unpleasing on the page, third, it still would not please feminists, who would rather see it as "her/his."

Male / Female Sets in Sayings

Jesus liked to tell parables and sayings in sets in which one has a male subject, and one has a female subject. Some translations, however, go overboard in gender inclusivity, and change the male subjects to inclusive, but leave the female subjects female, even though both subjects are represented sometimes only by a pronoun. There was no compelling reason for the him to change the gender of the pronouns, but HE DID. If every iota and serif is inspired, then you certainly must leave this difference in gender of pronouns. How is it more accurate, to change all male pronouns to gender inclusive words, but leave all female pronouns as female? That would not seem to be "gender inclusive," but rather female chauvinist. The bottom line is inaccuracy of translation, and loss of literary character:

First, the text as it should be.

Matt 24:40-41

40 At that time, two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.

41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and the other left.

In this passage, there are not the words for men or women, but the inflections of all the words change between male and female.

Luke 13:18-21

18 then he said, "What is the kingdom of God like? And to what may I compare it?

19 It is like a mustard seed that a man (anthropos) took and cast into his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches."

20 And again he said, "To what may I compare the kingdom of God?

21 It is like yeast that a woman (gunee) took and folded into three measures of dough until the whole was leavened."

Luke 11:31-32

31 The Queen of the South will be raised at the judgment with the men (aneer) of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, one greater than Solomon is here.

32 The men (aneer) of Nineveh will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, one greater than Jonah is here.

Perhaps this is meant to shame the men.

Luke 17:34-35

34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men on one couch; one will be taken, and the other left.

35 There will be two women together grinding grain; one will be taken, and the other left."

Male inflections, then female inflections. There was no compelling reason for the writer to change the inflections, but HE DID. If every iota and serif is inspired, then you certainly must leave this difference. Many translations change the male pronouns to gender inclusive words, but leave the female subjects female. How is it more accurate, to change all male pronouns to gender inclusive words, but leave all female pronouns as female? That would seem to be not "gender inclusive," but rather female favoritism.

So then, the proper words should be:

men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women

NRSV blank - women - someone - woman - people - people - blank - women

Minus 5 points.

Tynd blank - blank - man - woman - men - men - blank - [whole verse omitted]

Darby    blank - blank - man - woman - men - men - blank - blank
CEV    men - women - someone - woman - you - people - people - women
NLT    men - women - (passive vb) - woman - blank - people - people - women
ISV    people - women - someone - woman - people - men - people - woman (yes, singular; a typo I'm sure)
NET    blank - women - man - woman - people - people - people – women

LITV blank – blank – man – woman – men – men – blank – blank

EMTV blank – blank – man – woman – men – men – blank – blank

Minus 4 points.

Mess men - women - man - woman - Ninevites - blank - (seq. switched) - men - women

Minus 3 points, plus another demerit for changing the sequence in the Luke 11 passage. Minus 4 points.

JNT men - women - man - woman - people - people - people - women
NCV men - women - man - woman - people - people - people - women

TNIV men - women - man - woman - people - people - people – women

Minus 3 points.

NAB men - women - person - woman - men - men - people - women
GW men - women - someone - woman - men - men - people - women

ALT people – women – man – woman – men – men – people – women

Minus 2 points.

KJV blank - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
Douay blank - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women

Ampl    men - women - man - woman - people - men - men - women
JB     men - women - man - woman - men - men - blank - women
Recov. men - women - man - woman - men - men - blank - women
RSV    men - women - man - woman - men - men - blank - women
ESV    men - women - man - woman - men - men - blank - women
NIV     men - women - man - woman - men - men - people - women
REB    men - women - man - woman - men - men - people - women
WEB    men - women - man - woman - men - men - people - blank
HCSB    men - women - man - woman - men - men - blank - women

Minus 1 point.

ASV     man - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
YLT    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
Wey    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
CBW    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
Phil        men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
BBE    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
NASB    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
NKJV    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women
DRP    men - women - man - woman - men - men - men - women

These are correct.

Mark 7:19

καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται
and - into - the - drain - it goes out

For some reason, some translations do not translate the phrase "into the drain."

Wey and passes away ejected from him

NKJV and is eliminated

RSV and so passes on

ESV and is expelled

Phil and passes out of the body altogether

NASB and is eliminated

NIV and then out of his body

TNIV and then out of your body

NLT and then comes out again

NCV then it goes out of the body

CEV and then out of your body

ISV and is expelled as waste

HCSB and is eliminated

I don't know what caused these translators to refrain from directly translating the phrase "into the drain." But if it was a Victorian sensibility against mentioning things like toilets and sewers, I have no sympathy for that. It is that same Victorian sensibility that for so long made unmentionable in the church such things as child sexual abuse by clergy, and other evils. Jesus was a straight talker. Christians should be too. The above renderings are docked one accuracy point.

Mess works its way through the intestines, and is finally flushed

Apparently Peterson translates "drain" as "intestines." This interpretation is also perhaps meant to explain how "all foods are made clean," by the intestines.

Tynd and goeth out into the draught

KJV goeth out into the draught

Douay goeth out into the privy

Darby and goes out into the draught

YLT and into the drain it doth go out

ASV and goeth out into the draught

CBW and then it passes off into the waste

JB and passes out into the sewer

BBE and goes out with the waste

REB and so goes out into the drain

JNT and it passes out into the latrine

NAB and passes out into the latrine

Recov. and goes out into the drain

NRSV goes out into the sewer

GW and then into a toilet

WEB then into the latrine

NET and then goes out into the sewer

ALT and goes out into the latrine

LITV and goes out into the waste-bowl

EMTV and passes into the latrine

DRP and then goes out into the sewer

The word "draught" means "pull" or "draw." This I would guess refers to the pull of gravity in the gravity drain systems in use in the most modern cities of that era.

Luke 11:7

τὰ παιδία μου μετ’ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν

the - children - of me - with - me - in - the - bed - are

Mess my children are all down for the night

This one (1) does not translate "with" (2) does not translate "me" This does not even mention the bed! Minus 3 accuracy points.

GW my children are in bed

This one (1) does not translate "with" (2) does not translate "me" This does not even mention that the man is in bed! Minus 2 accuracy points.

Tynd my servants are with me in the chamber

Though "servants" is a possible translation of "paidia" in other contexts, it isn't in this context. "Chamber" is not as accurate as "bed." Minus 2 points.

Phil	my children and I have gone to bed.
NASB	my children and I are in bed
NAB	my children and I are already in bed
NCV	my children and I are in bed
CEV	my children and I are in bed
NLT	we are all in bed
JB	my children and I are in bed
REB	my children and I have gone to bed
TNIV	my children and I are in bed
HCSB	my children and I have gone to bed

Modern and rich people take for granted having their own bed, in which they can sleep alone. But this is not the case for poor people, or people in many cultures both present-day and ages past. (My definition of "rich" is if each member of the family has their own bed, and especially their own bedroom. The majority of all people on the earth have not had this luxury.)

Might it be that the above translators felt uncomfortable with the idea of a man sleeping with his children? Could it be that years of tyrannical treatment of the poor by various child protective agencies, have affected the translators' outlook? (By modern American laws, 99% of all parents in history, were criminally neglectful of their children. In America, you can have your children taken away from you, if you don't have indoor plumbing, electricity, or if you sleep in the same bed as some of your children. This is oppression of the poor of the worst kind. Often there is not even court due process involved. They steal your child, and maybe ask questions later.) Minus 1 point each. Except NLT, which did not translate the words children and I. NLT minus 2.

KJV	my children are with me in bed
Douay	my children are with me in bed
ASV	my children are with me in bed
Darby	my children are with me in bed
YLT	my children with me are in the bed
Wey	I am here in bed with my children
Recov.	my children are with me in bed
RSV	my children are with me in bed
ESV	my children are with me in bed
BBE	my children are with me in bed
NIV	my children are with me in bed
NKJV	my children are with me in bed
NET	my children are with me in bed
WEB	my children are with me in bed
ISV	my children are with me in bed
NRSV	my children are with me in bed
JNT	my children are with me in bed
ALT	my young children are with me in bed
EMTV	my children are with me in bed
LITV	my children are in bed with me
DRP	my children are in bed with me
CBW	my children are packed about me in bed

These renderings make more sense. The context is a man knocking on his friend's door late at night asking for something: "That one inside may say in answer, 'Do not cause me hassles. The door is already shut up, and my children are in bed with me. I can't get up to give you anything.'" If his children were in other rooms, or even in their own beds in the same room as the man, this would not be a problem. In any of those cases, you might think that his yelling to his friend outside might wake up his children. But that is not the case. The children sleep soundly, "sleep like a baby." What would wake them up, is if he got up out of the same bed as the children, disturbing the blankets or the close arrangement of bodies. Charles Williams obviously had this in mind, when he rendered it, "my children are packed about me in bed."

John 2:10

ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν

hotan mequsqwsin - HOTAN METHUSTHWSIN

when they are intoxicated

BBE and when all have had enough

Not even close. The Greek word does not mean anything close to "have enough." Minus 1 point.

KJV	when men have well drunk
Douay	when men have well drunk
ASV	when men have drunk freely
Darby	when have well drunk
YLT	when they may have drunk freely
Wey	when people have drunk freely
CBW	after people have drunk freely
Phil	and then when men have had plenty to drink
NASB	when the people have drunk freely
JB	till the guests have had plenty to drink
RSV	when men have drunk freely
ESV	when people have drunk freely
NKJV	when the guests have well drunk
JNT	after people have drunk freely
NCV	after the guests have been drinking a while
Mess	after the guests have had their fill
CEV	after the guests have had plenty
NLT	when everyone is full and doesn't care
WEB	when the guests have drunk freely
Recov	when they have drunk freely
NAB	when people have drunk freely
REB	when the guests have drunk freely
MKJV	when men have drunk well
ALT	when they have drunk freely
LITV	when they have drunk freely
HCSB	after people have drunk freely
EMTV	when they have well drunk

I don't understand how, when this Greek word METHUSKW, in every single other instance in all of Greek literature, whether classical, or New Testament, always meant "intoxicated," how in this one instance it does not. I'm pretty sure that the above group of renderings are inaccurate. Another reason is, that the verb is in the passive voice. The people are acted upon, that is, they are made intoxicated. It is not supposed to be an active rendering, like " they have well drunk." But, because the BAG lexicon, and the Analytical Lexicon, and the lexicon in the back of the UBS Greek New Testament, say that perhaps in this one instance in John 2:10 it means "drink freely," I am not going to dock them any accuracy points. However, I will credit two "courage in accuracy" points to some of the translations below.

NIV,TNIV after the guests have had too much to drink

Did they over-indulge in grape juice? If so, why would they do that? And what harm is there in drinking too much grape juice? Feeling too full? This is too vague.

Tynd	when men be drunk
NRSV	after the guests have become drunk
ISV	when people are drunk.
NET	when the guests are drunk.
GW	When people are drunk
Pick	when people are intoxicated
DRP	after they have become drunk

The above renderings get two extra credit points for courage to be accurate.

We especially have to give credit to Tyndale, for daring to translate it correctly in his day. There is a Christian "urban legend" that the wine in Jesus' time and culture was not alcoholic. If that were true that the wine of those days was not alcoholic, then some words of the apostle Paul in I Corinthians and Ephesians would be nonsense. Using this same word METHUSKW, Paul says in I Corinthians 11:21 that some in the church were getting drunk on the Lord's Supper wine, before everyone else had arrived yet. And in Ephesians 5:18, using this same word METHUSKW, Paul says, "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit..." Do not be drunk with grape juice? Come on, be honest- the wine was alcoholic.

It has never been forbidden to God's people to drink alcoholic beverages, even whiskey. (There were restrictions as to when and where and how much, but not an outright, total ban.) In Deuteronomy 14:26, the Israelites are commanded to eat a tithe meal in the presence of the LORD, which could include "wine or strong drink." In Numbers 28:7, part of the food offering that was "a pleasing odor" to the LORD, was a drink offering of "strong drink." This nullifies the argument that the wine in the Bible times was "weaker." That argument doesn't matter, since "strong drink" was also allowed.

Now don't go saying that I advocate drunkenness. Scripture is clear: "Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit." Also, Romans 14:21 agrees that the drinking of wine is a practice hard for many believers to accept. (By the way, what would be hard to accept about Christians drinking wine, if this verse was referring to non-alcoholic grape juice?) I respect the policy of abstinence, for the purpose of "better safe, than sorry." But just don't claim to have scriptural authority to forbid generally the drinking of alcohol. Be honest, is all I ask. And don't condemn those of your fellow believers who drink alcohol without getting drunk. The morally mature person can distinguish between drinking, and getting drunk. If you can't drink without getting drunk, then you are the weaker person, and should be humble about it. If your conscience does not allow you to drink alcohol, then you are the weaker brother, and are in no position to be proud toward those who are stronger than you. Paul in Romans 12 and First Corinthians 8 calls you the "weaker brother." There is no place to feel superior or holier than those who do drink alcohol.

Now here are a few comparisons from the Apocalypse of John. In this book, there are some less-usual usages of prepositions.

Revelation 4:6

Καὶ	ἐν μέσῳ	τοῦ θρόνου	καὶ	κύκλῳ	τοῦ θρόνου	τέσσαρα	ζῷα
And	in between	the throne	and	the circle around	the throne	four	living beings

The writer of the Apocalypse, John, is very concerned and precise about spatial relationships in his descriptions. He often uses prepositions somewhat more specifically spatially and geometrically than the rest of the New Testament. Here we have the preposition combination ?? ????, “in between.” John’s vision is somewhat reminiscent of Ezekiel’s “wheel within a wheel.” Here we have the throne area as a large circle, the outer circle being the 24 elders seated around the throne, and in between the throne and that circle around the throne we have another, moving, circle of four living beings, with the whole being surrounded by an aura. I am going to dock some translations for giving non-sensical and / or impossible renderings, and give extra credit to those who got the wheel within a wheel imagery.

Mess Prowling around the throne were four animals

There is no word for “prowling” in the Greek. The words ἐν μέσῳ are not translated at all. The word καὶ "and" is not translated at all. Minus 4 points.

Wycliffe and in the myddil of the seete, and in the cumpas of the seete, foure beestis

Tyndale and in the myddes of the seate and rounde aboute the seate were iiii. bestes

Geneva and in the middes of the throne, & round about the throne were foure beasts

Bishops and in the myddest of the throne, & rounde about the throne, were foure beastes

Douay and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four living creatures

KJV and in the middest of the throne, and round about the Throne, were foure beastes

ASV and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, four living creatures

Darby And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, four living creatures

YLT and in the midst of the throne, and round the throne, are four living creatures

WEB In the midst of the throne, and around the throne were four living creatures

NKJV And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures

Recov. And in the midst of the throne and around the throne, there were four living creatures

BBE and in the middle of the high seat, and round about it, four beasts

NET In the middle of the throne and around the throne were four living creatures

EMTV And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living beings

ALT and in [the] center of the throne and around the throne [were] four living creatures

LITV And in the midst of the throne and around the throne were four living creatures

Pick And in the midst of the throne and around the throne were four living beings

MKJV And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures

ACV And in the midst of the throne, and all around the throne, were four beings

These above are the nonsensical ones. The four beings cannot be both “in the middle of the throne” and also “around the throne.” Anyway, God is the one who is in the middle of the throne. Minus 2 points each.

CBW Around the throne, at the middle of each side were four living creatures

Phillips On each side, encircling the throne, are four living creatures

GNB Surrounding the throne on each of its sides, were four living creatures

RSV And round the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures

NRSV Around the throne, and on each side of the throne, are four living creatures

ESV And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures

ISV In the center of the throne and on each side of the throne were four living creatures

GW In the center near the throne and around the throne were four living creatures

The phrases “on each side,” and “at the middle of each side,” and “near” etc. are not in the Greek. Minus 2 points each.

NASB and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures

NIV In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures

NAB In the center and around the throne, there were four living creatures

JNT In the center, around the throne, were four living beings

NCV In the center and around the throne were four living creatures

CEV Around the throne in the center were four living creatures

NLT In the center and around the throne were four living beings

HCSB In the middle and around the throne were four living creatures

TNIV In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures

These have a possible and reasonable rendering, except that they did not translate the first instance of τοῦ θρόνου. The phrase “the throne” is in the Greek twice. The Greek is saying that the 4 beings are in the middle (between) object A and object B. Minus 1 point.

Wey And midway between the throne and the Elders, and surrounding the throne, were four living creatures

JB between the throne with its four animals and the circle of the elders

REB with the four living creatures between the throne and the elders

DRP And in between the throne and the circle around the throne are four living beings

These get the right idea. The primary meaning of the Greek word κυκλος is a ring, circle, or wheel. The Greek is saying that the 4 beings are in the middle (between) object A and object B. Object A is the throne, and object B is the ring or circle of the throne. I don’t like that the Weymouth, Jerusalem Bible, and REB paraphrase by adding the phrase “the elders.” The intelligent reader can figure out what the circle or ring is, simply by going back and reading the verses prior, and seeing that the elders form a circle around the throne.

Revelation 20:9

καὶ	ἀνέβησαν	ἐπὶ	τὸ πλάτο	τῆς γῆς	καὶ	ἐκύκλευσαν	τὴν παρεμβολὴν	τῶν ἁγίων
and	they rose up	over	the breadth	of the earth	and	encircled	the company	of the saints

This preposition ??? has its most common meaning as “upon,” but the author of the Apocalypse often uses it as meaning “above,” “over,” or “across.” (Not only this author, but others as well.) Therefore it is rather lame and unskilled to render this preposition as “upon” or “on” or “in” here.

The second thing I am going to look at here is how ἀνέβησαν is translated. The word ἀναβαίνω simply means to ascend or rise up. It is used of getting up in the morning, or also of going up a mountain, or even of mounting a horse. But I am going to dock accuracy points from translations that add words rather than keep it simply what the Greek says.

Wycl And thei stieden vp on the broodnesse of erthe, and enuyrounede the castels of seyntis

Phillips They came up and spread over the breadth of the earth; they encircled the army of the saints

Tynd and they went vp on the playne of the erth and compased the tentes of the saynctes about

Geneva and they went vp on the playne of the erth and compased the tentes of the saynctes about

Bishops And they went vp in the playne of the earth, and compassed the tentes of the saintes about

NLT And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth

Douay And they came upon the breadth of the earth and encompassed the camp of the saints

KJV And they went vp on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the campe of the Saints about

Darby And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and surrounded the camp of the saints

NKJV They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

CBW They came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people

ASV And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about

YLT and they did go up over the breadth of the land, and did surround the camp of the saints

WEB They went up over the breadth of the earth, and surrounded the camp of the saints

Wey And they went up over the whole breadth of the earth and surrounded the encampment of God's people

JB they will come swarming over the entire country and besiege the camp of the saints

RSV And they marched up over the broad earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

NIV They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people

REB They marched over the breadth of the land and laid seige to the camp of God’s people

NRSV They marched up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

ESV And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

TNIV They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people

Recov. And they went up upon the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

NAB They invaded the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the holy ones

JNT And they came up over the breadth of the Land and surrounded the camp of God’s people

BBE And they went up over the face of the earth, and made a circle about the tents of the saints

NCV And Satan’s army marched across the earth and gathered around the camp of God’s people

Mess They’ll stream across the earth, surround and lay siege to the camp of God’s people

CEV and they will march all the way across the earth. They will surround the camp of God’s people

NASB And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

ISV They marched over the broad expanse of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

NET They went up on the broad plain of the earth and encircled the camp of the saints

GW I saw that they spread over the broad expanse of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s holy people

HCSB They came up over the surface of the earth and surrounded the encampment of the saints

EMTV They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

ALT And they went up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the holy ones

LITV And they went up over the breadth of the land and encircled the camp of the saints

MKJV And they went up over the breadth of the earth and circled around the camp of the saints

Pick They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints

ACV And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and surrounded the encampment of the sanctified

DRP And they rose up over the breadth of the earth, and surrounded the company of the saints

An uprising; a world-wide rebellion.

Revelation 13:16

καὶ	ποιεῖ	πάντας	…	ἵνα	δῶσιν	αὐτοῖς	χάραγμα(τα)
and	it/he causes	all	...	such that	they give	to themselves	a mark / marks

The biggest thing I am watching for is whether the translations translate the word αὐτοῖς at all. This is a very important verse, and αὐτοῖς is a very important word in the verse. The other word I am grading on is the word δίδωμι, here in the form δώσιν, “they give.” It must be 3rd person PLURAL. Also, to render the word “give” as “receive,” is like rendering “light” as “darkness.” They are opposites in my book. Giving is the opposite of receiving, surely we can agree on this.

Wycliffe And he schal make alle…to haue a carecter

Tyndale And he made all…to receave a marke

Geneva And he made all…to receiue a marke

Bishops And he made all…to receaue a marke

Douay And he shall make all…to have a character

KJV And he causeth all…to receive a mark

ASV And he causeth all…that there be given them a mark

Darby And it causes all…that they should give them a mark

YLT And it maketh all…that it may give to them a mark

WEB He causes all…to be given marks

Wey And he causes all… to have stamped upon them a mark

CBW And he makes all…have a marked stamped on

Phillips Then it compels all… to receive a mark

NASB And he causes all…to be given a mark

JB He compelled everyone…to be branded

RSV Also it causes all… to be marked

NKJV And he causes all…to receive a mark

NIV He also forced everyone…to receive a mark

Recov. And he causes all...to be given a mark

NAB It forced all…to be given a stamped image

REB It caused everyone…to have a mark put on

NRSV Also it causes all… to be marked

JNT Also it forces everyone-- …to receive a mark

BBE And he gives to all… a mark

NCV The second beast also forced all people…to have a mark

Mess It forced all people…to have a mark

CEV All people were forced to put a mark

NLT He required everyone—…to be given a mark

ISV The second beast forces all people—…to be marked

NET He also caused everyone… to obtain a mark

GW The second beast forces all people-…to be branded

HCSB And he requires everyone-- …to be given a mark

ESV Also it causes all…to be marked

TNIV It also forced all people...to receive a mark

EMTV And he causes all...that they should receive marks

ALT And it makes all [people]… that marks shall be given to them

LITV it causes that they give to them all a mark

Pick And he causes everyone—…to receive marks

ACV And it makes all...that they would give them marks

DRP And he causes all…to provide themselves a mark

Revelation 18:20

ἔκρινεν	ὁ θεὸς	τὸ κρίμα	ὑμῶν	ἐξ	αὐτῆς
has judged	God	judgment	your	from	her

The Greek word ????? had many uses and shades of meaning just as our words do. There needs to be common sense adjustment to English and the parts of speech, and to its legal context, and not always rendering it as "judgment" in every context. Here, the context is a court. Courts in most times and cultures, certainly in the Greek language, had their own special meanings for words when used in litigation and pleadings. A translation should not shy away from using good words; but rather the reader should be glad to get the opportunity to grow in language ability by studying those words.

In this passage I am going to penalize versions that do not translate the preposition ?? correctly. God is granting us something FROM her.

MLB – on your behalf God has passed judgment against her

TNIV – God has judged her with the judgment she imposed on you

Babylon did not in fact impose the judgment on us that we be burned up, never to be found again. This rendering is a loose paraphrase, and not even conveying the correct meaning either.

And now for the accuracy scores & (Note: these scores are ratings of their accuracy in the above passages only. This does not mean that in other passages that I have not read or covered, they might not be better or worse.)

YLT	minus 18	Not as accurate as this score indicates. eg., often does not render aorist aspect accurately.
NAB	minus 19	I have always found the NAB to be both accurate and readable.
NASB	minus 19	Accurate, mainstream conservative protestant evangelical. Not the smoothest reading, but good enough.
ASV	minus 20	Does not read well. But, it is copyright-lapsed and public domain. A big plus.
ESV	minus 20	Improved accuracy over RSV, of which it is a revision. Seems actually less beautiful. Commas lacking.
HCSB	minus 20	Fairly simple English. Only the New Testament published.
ISV	minus 20	I'll have to look into this one more.
Recov.	minus 20	Sectarian footnotes.
CBW	minus 21	Done in 1937 by an individual. Ahead of his time in many respects. Not as readable as many.
JNT	minus 21	Good for getting a Jewish perspective. Kind of a Jewish NIV, and improved in accuracy.
NKJV	minus 21	Based on the Textus Receptus.
BBE	minus 22	Of simple translations, maybe the most accurate. Pretty good for a freely available, uncopyrighted
JB	minus 22	This one is much better than this score, when you add the criterion of very high literary quality.
WEB	minus 22	Main thing to commend this one is that it is not copyrighted.
Douay	minus 23	Better than most Protestants think, but both outdated & not that accurate, and sectarian footnotes.
NET	minus 23	Lots of footnotes with this one, is an advantage. Not as bad in readability as I expected.
Tynd	minus 23	Done by an individual, William Tyndale. Far ahead of his time. KJV was based on Tyndale.
Darby	minus 24	Middling
Phil	minus 24	J. B. Philips' paraphrase.
REB	minus 24	This one is good for a really different perspective. Fairly high literary quality. Good in Apocrypha.
Wey	minus 24	Done by an individual; there are some odd and awkward places.
GW	minus 24	Short, choppy sentences; not high literary quality.
RSV	minus 24	Better in over-all usefulness than this score, because it is above average in literary beauty.
TNIV	minus 24	Only one point better than NIV of which it is a revision. In some other passages, it is improved.
KJV	minus 25	Outdated English, outdated Greek sources. Anglican bias regarding church polity terminology. Good rhythm.
NIV	minus 25	Not very accurate, but when you include literary quality it would move up.
NRSV	minus 25	Goes to awkward lengths for gender accuracy. Not as smooth and beautiful as many. Feels quite flat.
CEV	minus 26	Much too simplified in places. Reads well.
NCV	minus 29	Some renderings extremely good; some renderings extremely bad.
NLT	minus 29	Probably not this good. There are some particularly inaccurate passages.
Mess	minus 41	A very loose paraphrase. Not accurate.

Recommend This Page!

Abbreviation Keys and Copyright Information

Bible Translations:

Tynd. = William Tyndale, 1527, public domain
Douay = The Douay-Rheims, by Martin, Allen and Bristow, New Testament published in 1582; Roman Catholic, public domain
KJV = King James Version, 1611, as revised by Blayney, 1769, or the Scrivener 1873 revision; Anglican, public domain, though AV1611 was copyrighted by the King.
YLT = Young's Literal Translation, Robert Young, 1862, public domain
Darby = John Nelson Darby's translation, 1871, Brethren denomination, public domain
ASV = American Standard Version, 1901, public domain
Wey = Richard Francis Weymouth, published 1903, revised by James A. Robertson, 1924? public domain?
CBW = Charles B. Williams' translation, 1937, Copyright © 1986, Homan Bible Publishers, All rights reserved.
RSV = Revised Standard Version, 1946, 1971 Edition, Copyright © 1971, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America
ESV - English Standard Version, Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois. All rights reserved. http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv/ ; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581343167/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/104-8504291-2345559
HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible, © 2001, Broadman & Holman Publishers, Lifeway Christian Resources, 127 Ninth Avenue North, Nashville, TN 37234. http://www.broadmanholman.com/hcsb/default.asp
BBE = The Bible in Basic English, 1949, 1964, Published by Cambridge Press. Now Public Domain in the USA, as far as I know.
Ampl. = Amplified Bible, 1954, Copyright © 1987 by the Lockman Foundation, a corporation not for profit, La Habra, California; All Rights Reserved
Phil = J.B. Phillips, 1958, Revised 1972, Copyright Mrs. Vera Phillips and the J.B. Phillips Estate?, published by Harper Collins
NASB = New American Standard Bible, 1963, 1995 updated edition, Copyright © 1995 by the Lockman Foundation, a corporation not for profit, La Habra, California; All Rights Reserved
JB = Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Copyright © 1968 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. and Doubleday & Company, Inc. (Roman Catholic)
NAB = New American Bible, 1970, New Testament revised 1986, Copyright © 1986 by Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (Roman Catholic), Washington D.C. All rights reserved.
NIV = New International Version, 1973, Copyright © 1984 by International Bible Society, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Hodder Headline, Plc., Sevenoaks, Kent, England. All rights reserved.
TNIV = Today's New International Version, Copyright © by the International Bible Society, Colorado Springs, Colorado. http://www.tniv.info/
NKJV = New King James Version, 1979, Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee
Recov. = Recovery Version, 1985, Revised 1991, Copyright © 1991 by Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim, California (the "Local Church"; notes by Witness Lee.)
NCV = New Century Version, 1987, Copyright © 1991 by Word Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee
NRSV = New Revised Standard Version, 1989, Copyright © 1989 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America
JNT = Jewish New Testament, Copyright © 1989 by David H. Stern, All rights reserved. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, Israel
Mess = The Message, Copyright © 1993 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights Reserved.
CEV = Contemporary English Version, 1995, Copyright © 1995 by the American Bible Society, New York, New York
GW = God's Word, 1995, GOD'S WORD is a copyrighted work of God's Word to the Nations. Quotations are used by permission. Copyright © 1995 by God's Word to the Nations. All rights reserved.
MLB = Modern Language Bible, © 1969 Zondervan Publishing House, assigned in 1990 to Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.
NLT = New Living Translation, 1996, Copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust, Wheaton, Illinois. All rights reserved.
WEB = World English Bible, "World English Bible" is a trademark of Rainbow Missions, Inc. Permission is granted to use the name "World English Bible" and its logo only to identify faithful copies of the Public Domain translation of the Holy Bible of that name published by Rainbow Missions, Inc. The World English Bible is not copyrighted. The domain names eBible.org and mpj.cx are trademarks of Michael Paul Johnson.
NET = New English Translation, Copyright © 1997, 1998, 1999 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. and the authors. All rights reserved. For free usage information, please read the BSF web site copyright statement for fair use statements.
ISV = International Standard Version, 2000, Copyright © 2000 The ISV Foundation, Santa Ana, California, The Davidson Press, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY.
Alex = Victor Alexander's translation of an Aramaic source text
DRP = David Robert Palmer, translations from the Greek, purposely not copyrighted. Download, copy, print, and quote them at will. Do not change them.

Reference Works:

BAGD = A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Walter Bauer, Second Edition revised and augmented from Bauer's Fifth Edition of 1958, by F. W. Gingrich and Frederick Danker, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, Copyright © 1957, 1979 by the University of Chicago
BDF = A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. Blass and A. DeBrunner, A translation and revision of the ninth-tenth German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of A. DeBrunner, by Robert W. Funk, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London (1961)
BLD = Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Copyright © 1891, 1910, 1933, 1951, 1957, 1968, 1979, 1980 by West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A. All rights reserved.

Peace to you in Jesus. Dave Palmer.

Click here for a Sitemap of this Site.
Click her to Search this Site.
Click here to go to my translation download page.
Click here to to read about gay marriage licenses.
Click here to to read rebuttals to KJV-onlyism.
Click here to to read rebuttals of Gail Riplinger.
Click here to Go Back to Front Page.
Click here to Read my translation of the Gospel of Matthew.
Click here to Read my translation of the Gospel of John.
Click here to Read my translation of the Gospel of Mark.
Click here to Read my translation of the Gospel of Luke.
Click here for my links page.

Mark 14:6

Mark 15:2

Mark 2:23b