Discussion in 'Devotions' started by The Parson, Jun 8, 2017.
Brillant can be argued. But I'm satisfied with where you went. Makes sense to me.
Not in a million years sir. That is unless someone actually does an accurate translation from the RT.
You understood the text. You replaced conversation with words we would use today.
con•ver•sa•tion \ˌkän-vər-ˈsā-shən\ noun
[Middle English conversacioun, from Anglo-French conversacion, from Latin conversation-, conversatio, from conversari to associate with, frequentative of convertere to turn around] 14th century
1 obsolete: conduct, behavior
Conduct is used in the NKJV, ESV, HCSB, CSB & NRSV. So, at least in regard to that word, you should agree that all of those are accurate, shouldn't you?
Ahh yes. Makes sense now.
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; - NIV
but, like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all of your conduct, - NET
but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; - NASB
but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, - NKJV
but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, - ESV
but according as He who did call you [is] holy, ye also, become holy in all behaviour, - YLT
Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; - NRSV
Yes, I understood the text. It isn't the diction that's the problem. Lets not rehash this particular dead horse...
I think his point is that you did in your translation what you find problematic in so-called "modern" translations.
I knew most new versioners wouldn't know the meaning of the word, but thanks for the clarification RK.
I think this illustrates the biggest concern I have with the KJV. It uses words we still today use but not the way we use them today. Nobody is at fault in this.
Conversation is a great example. I know what is meant in the KJV. But outside of KJV context, who uses conversation to mean conduct in the 21st century (or latter 20th century)? Not just modern versioners, but any English speaking person.
I can't think of a modern day use of that. Not at my work. Football doesn't penalize guys for unsportsmanlike conversation. But we still use the word conversation. But we just mean talking. So even an intelligent, well-educated person, if they aren't familiar with archaic use of English words can misinterpret the KJV at 1 Peter 1:15 and twelve other locations where ἀναστροφή is translated as conversation. Most would interpret that as not more than one's speech and miss the whole point. And thus misinterpret and under apply the Scripture. That's a serious problem!
The word conversation was a perfectly good choice by the KJV translators. But due to our change of use of the definition of conversation, people naturally misunderstand the KJV due to no fault of the KJV nor of the 21st century reader. No one is at fault. But it's just a fact due to the constant evolving of language. I think it's too bad that they stopped revising the KJV in 1769.
I was referring to my misunderstanding of the word conversation. Which is why I always use multiple translations to get a better understanding for myself. I'm not that sharp. I need the extra help.
I like everyone's conversation in this conversation.
Me too. Polite and very edumacated. And very poetical.
I understand what you're saying Joe. To see the language updated without any "additions", "subtractions", or "so called corrections", by adding the other texts to it like the did they NKJV did. However, the only revision to take place in the KJB was to update the spelling. Nothing more before or after that. Except if you considering removal of the Apocrypha, which wasn't even authorized to be there in the first place.
So is silicon a semi-conversationer?
That went way over my head.
You organics are all the same.
To point out generally: anyone who believes in 'sin nature' cannot also believe that we can choose to live sinless, since sin would also be ontological reality re: human nature, and only God can renew human nature. We might succeed at not making sinful choices (assuming we're aware of every specific instance where sin is a possibility), but we would always be, pre-glorification, sinful people making choices not to sin.
So would the appropriate response to that be: "Gee, what a totally depraved thing to say"?
That sounds right to me.
The only two responses are: (1) we cannot live sinless lives, or (2) there's no such thing as a sin nature.
Separate names with a comma.