For popular or very good threads

August 2023 —

“The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) was the second most-sold Bible translation for three out of the past four months, according to data compiled by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA), coming in behind the New International Version (NIV) and ahead of the English Standard Version (ESV).”

— — —

4th most popular is King James. 5th is New Living.

And this is among evangelical Christians, not Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic, not mainstream Protestant, not liberal Protestant. Not Mormon, who I think I've always counted as Christian although I'm aware not everyone does.
 
Which is why there are two different punishments given. One if the baby lives and one if the child dies.
This would makes sense certainly. But all the same, that's not what it says.

And the Revised Standard Version uses the word “miscarriage” right there in the text. And Revised Standard was the mainstream Protestant version when I was a teenager in the 1970s.
I can see where you may interpret it that way. I see it differently though.

The word “miscarriage” may be in the RSV, but it’s not in the Hebrew text. That means it was added by the editors of the RSV, and not God.
 
22 ”When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall<b> be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

<b> = Heb he shall

— Revised Standard Version
I don't dispute that a lot of the English translations use the word "miscarriage". The NASB doesn't. But all these sources translate from the Hebrew text, and the original word there is yāṣā'.

The Hebrew word yāṣā' means "to come out of". There's no mention of coming out dead which adds to the meaning of the text.

Edit.. my source, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3318/kjv/wlc/0-1/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter
The word “miscarriage” may be in the RSV, but it’s not in the Hebrew text. That means it was added by the editors of the RSV, and not God.
Look, you're a bright person. And you have active and curious intelligence.

But—

Isn't it probable that the editors of the RSV are right and you're wrong? They're spiritual people who walk their Christian path. And they're able to spend much more time on it than you.
 
I’m not sure what you are asking. I take the Bible literally except where imagery is used.
If a friend or neighbor invited you to an Eastern Orthodox church service, for example. Or, maybe the person doing the AC repair work for your church.

Could you attend respectfully and get something out of it?

And most probably not change your beliefs. Or, only after you mull it over for a good long while.
 
I don't dispute that a lot of the English translations use the word "miscarriage". The NASB doesn't. But all these sources translate from the Hebrew text, and the original word there is yāṣā'.

The Hebrew word yāṣā' means "to come out of". There's no mention of coming out dead which adds to the meaning of the text.

Edit.. my source, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3318/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Similar question —

Do you fluently read modern Hebrew? And can identify ancient Hebrew within, say, 300 years?

You're a bright individual, Obviously. You dive into all this stuff.

But isn't it probable that the editors of the NIV, for example, are right and that you're wrong?

——

And didn't the NASB say “untimely” departure from the woman's body. And then said, Lit for Literal “her children come out" ? That's what it does say.

 
as an analogy . . .

What if a 3rd year medical student thinks Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is wrong on some specific?

I mean, it's possible. No one is saying Harrison's is divine. Although we hope the many authors and contributors are inspired by both science and concern for their patients.

But the betting chance is that Harrison’s is right and the student is wrong.
 
I’m not sure what you are asking. I take the Bible literally except where imagery is used.
If a friend or neighbor invited you to an Eastern Orthodox church service, for example. Or, maybe the person doing the AC repair work for your church.

Could you attend respectfully and get something out of it?

And most probably not change your beliefs. Or, only after you mull it over for a good long while.
Sure I could. A friend of mine that served in our police department chaplain corps with me was a Muslim. When he died, I went to his funeral service at his mosque. I have attended a Russian orthodox service with another chaplain friend. I have been asked to attend a Jewish worship service, but unfortunately I have not made time to attend yet. I am respectful of others beliefs. Serving as both a hospital/hospice chaplain and law enforcement chaplain I have interacted with many different faiths as well as with those of no faith. My responsibility was not to convert them to my faith, but to comfort them. If I was asked a question, I made sure to let them know first of all that my answer was based on what my faith teaches. I have had many discussions with people I theologically disagree with and maintained a friendly relationship with them. It seems the more I discuss my beliefs with others, the more I am convinced my beliefs are correct. I hope I answered your question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Do you fluently read modern Hebrew? And can identify ancient Hebrew within, say, 300 years?

You're a bright individual, Obviously. You dive into all this stuff.

But isn't it probable that the editors of the NIV, for example, are right and that you're wrong?
I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I would still like to answer this from my position. I did study the Hebrew language during my seminary courses. It was many years ago and even when it was fresh in my mind, I could not fluently read or speak Hebrew. However, I can research Hebrew and Greek words and understand their meaning. I don't have to be fluent to comprehend Greek and Hebrew word meanings.

As far as the NIV is concerned, yeah, they got it wrong. I'll prove it. Notice these verses from the NIV. Mark 1:1-3
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,
2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” —
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ”

Here's the problem...Isaiah did not say "I will send my messenger ahead of you to prepare the way..." That is a quote from Mal.3:1. The editors knew this was not from Isaiah, so they put a footnote referencing this verse to Mal.3. If a person says or writes something they know to be false, they are lying.

Here is another example of the NIV getting it wrong. Satan's angelic name was Lucifer. I believe everyone knows who Lucifer is. It is only found one time in the Bible in Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!. However, this is how the NIV records Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth,. Not only do they remove the name "Lucifer" they change the name to "morning star". But notice where the name "morning star" is also used...Rev.22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” So not only does the NIV remove the name Lucifer, they give Jesus and Satan the same name.

Not only does the NIV lie, call Jesus and Satan by the same name, they remove 16 verses completely, and about 20 others through their footnotes. Here's a link for that:
So, yeah, the NIV editors were dead wrong.