What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • Guest, We are excited to announce a new era for ChristianForums.net! Please visit our Community Message!

Feedback Why KJV 2000

Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,731
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#1
I am new here and I'm surprised that whenever I insert a Bible reference that a link is automatically given to the default of KJV 1900. Why is this? Why don't you allow the posters to determine which translation they prefer and if no version is mentioned, that could be what the poster intended?

I recently posted Titus 2:11 and quoted it from the ESV and marked it as ESV. What did the automatic default do? It linked to the KJV 1900. I do not think that this is a suitable method for an open forum where many people may prefer other versions.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,731
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#4
John 3:16

John 3:16 ESV

John 3:16 NIV
Citing three different translations does not solve the exegesis of τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆτὸν of John 3:16 (Greek) where τὸν μονογενῆτὸν = the only born. I read and have taught NT Greek. 'Only begotten' is not language that we understand in 21st century Australian English.

The word for 'only begotten' = only born, first appears in John's Gospel in John 1:14, 18 (NIV) as well. Don (D A) Carson is an outstanding evangelical Greek exegete and he stated of John 1:14 (NIV):
The underlying expression was rendered 'only-begotten' Son in earlier translations, but despite the efforts of some to restore that rendering, the NIV is a little closer to what is meant. The glory displayed in the incarnate Word is the kind of glory a father grants to his one and only, best-loved Son - and this Father is God himself. Thus it is nothing less than God's glory that John and his friends witnessed in the Word-made-flesh (Carson 1991:128, emphasis in original).
I endorse the view expressed by Carson that this is the meaning of τὸν μονογενῆτὸν in John 3:16 (NIV) as well, 'his one and only, best-loved Son'. So the NIV, 'one and only Son' expresses the meaning well and the ESV 'only Son' convey the meaning of the Greek.

It is the purpose of a pastor in his preaching to expound the nuances of τὸν μονογενῆτὸν.

However, the issue for me with CF is: Why is it necessary at all to superimpose a CF preferred translation (KJV 1900) onto any Bible reference that is given by a poster when that is not the translation that is stated?


Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
47,084
Gender
Female
#5
Whoa we are not on the same page... I am speaking to the mechanics of why and how the Bible links work and how you can adjust them

I believe a while back the question was asked of the membership and the majority suggest the KJV so it is the default..
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
14,681
Christian
Yes
#9
Citing three different translations does not solve the exegesis of τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆτὸν of John 3:16 (Greek) where τὸν μονογενῆτὸν = the only born. I read and have taught NT Greek. 'Only begotten' is not language that we understand in 21st century Australian English.

The word for 'only begotten' = only born, first appears in John's Gospel in John 1:14, 18 (NIV) as well. Don (D A) Carson is an outstanding evangelical Greek exegete and he stated of John 1:14 (NIV):

I endorse the view expressed by Carson that this is the meaning of τὸν μονογενῆτὸν in John 3:16 (NIV) as well, 'his one and only, best-loved Son'. So the NIV, 'one and only Son' expresses the meaning well and the ESV 'only Son' convey the meaning of the Greek.

It is the purpose of a pastor in his preaching to expound the nuances of τὸν μονογενῆτὸν.

However, the issue for me with CF is: Why is it necessary at all to superimpose a CF preferred translation (KJV 1900) onto any Bible reference that is given by a poster when that is not the translation that is stated?


Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
??? I think if you remove the parentheses around (INV) it will show the quote from the INV correct?
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,731
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#10
Whoa we are not on the same page... I am speaking to the mechanics of why and how the Bible links work and how you can adjust them

I believe a while back the question was asked of the membership and the majority suggest the KJV so it is the default..
Thanks for the explanation, but that was not was conveyed when you gave links to those 3 translations. But I'll take the blame for my response as I thought you were comparing what 3 different translations did with 'only begotten' in John 3:16 as that is what has led to quite a bit of controversy in exegetical circles.

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Thanks for demonstrating the mechanics and I'll know what to do in the future (as I did in my response to the Greek of John 3:16).
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
3,731
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#11
??? I think if you remove the parentheses around (INV) it will show the quote from the INV correct?
Let's try it: John 3:16 NIV

Thanks a million, Deb, for that hint. I'll try it with the ESV: John 3:16 ESV