JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
In another thread dealing with the inadequacies of the NIV with regards to 1 Cor 5:5, the following was posted:
Going back and looking at my last post I see that in the post before mine Marrow Man as moderator pointed out this was off topic to the 1 Cor 5:5 discussion and so I'm moving the 2nd part of my answer which dealt with Romans 8:26 (not 16) here and will deal with the other three verses mentioned.
Romans 8:26
Geneva Bible:
Authorized Version:
As to the himself/itself regarding the Holy Ghost in Romans 8:26, perhaps the Geneva Bible translators, for it is there as well, and the AV translators knew something we do not. It is well known that both groups translated the verse to accurately reflect the underlying Greek text. Modern versions do not. As the Greek requires the translation to have the neuter pronoun. Having a problem with the Geneva/AV renderings of Romans 8:26 is having a problem with the original text of scripture in the Greek language. I've always found it strange that people who cry foul over this verse, do not cry foul over Luke 2:17 in the ESV which refers to Jesus as an it. Inconsistency in argumentation reveals bias against that which is being argued. And bias has no place in our reasoning.
John Gill's Exposition:
Notice the absence of his comments on the rendering.
Easter
Acts 12:3,4
Geneva Bible:
Authorized Version:
Doesn't take much to see that Easter is a synonym for Passover. This TBS article deals with it and points out it was most likely inadvertent that it was left in: Acts 12:4 & Easter
John Gill's Exposition:
Titus 2:13
Geneva Version:
Authorized Version:
One needs merely read the following article to see how there is no problem with either version's rendering. Titus 2:13 The author points out that the problem is not with the text, but with our understanding of English grammar. From the article:
The author also comments on an important theological distinction made in the Geneva/AV rendering and lost in such renderings as found in the NIV:
Lest someone bring up the Granville-Sharp "Rule" one can read a refutation of it here, Vindication of certain passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament, addressed to Granville Sharp by Calvin Winstanley.
I don't see how Romans 8:16 and Titus 2:13 are better translations in the NIV, it seems pretty equivalent to me.
The Jews didn't celebrate Easter, nor is it taught in Scripture.
The AV talks about the Holy Spirit as "itself" rather than "Himself" (Rom 8:16), the Holy Spirit being a person, and the NIV has a clear teaching on Christ being God at Titus 2:13.
Going back and looking at my last post I see that in the post before mine Marrow Man as moderator pointed out this was off topic to the 1 Cor 5:5 discussion and so I'm moving the 2nd part of my answer which dealt with Romans 8:26 (not 16) here and will deal with the other three verses mentioned.
Romans 8:26
Geneva Bible:
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what to pray as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh request for us with sighs, which cannot be expressed.
Authorized Version:
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
As to the himself/itself regarding the Holy Ghost in Romans 8:26, perhaps the Geneva Bible translators, for it is there as well, and the AV translators knew something we do not. It is well known that both groups translated the verse to accurately reflect the underlying Greek text. Modern versions do not. As the Greek requires the translation to have the neuter pronoun. Having a problem with the Geneva/AV renderings of Romans 8:26 is having a problem with the original text of scripture in the Greek language. I've always found it strange that people who cry foul over this verse, do not cry foul over Luke 2:17 in the ESV which refers to Jesus as an it. Inconsistency in argumentation reveals bias against that which is being argued. And bias has no place in our reasoning.
John Gill's Exposition:
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession, for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered; not the spirit of a man; or the gift of the Spirit in man; or a man endued with an extraordinary gift of the Spirit; but the Holy Ghost himself, who makes intercession for the saints: not in such sense as Christ does; for he intercedes not with the Father, but with them, with their
spirits; not in heaven, but in their hearts; and not for sinners, but for saints:
Notice the absence of his comments on the rendering.
Easter
Acts 12:3,4
Geneva Bible:
3 And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further, to take Peter also (then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.
Authorized Version:
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Doesn't take much to see that Easter is a synonym for Passover. This TBS article deals with it and points out it was most likely inadvertent that it was left in: Acts 12:4 & Easter
John Gill's Exposition:
intending after Easter, or the passover,
Titus 2:13
Geneva Version:
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ.
Authorized Version:
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
One needs merely read the following article to see how there is no problem with either version's rendering. Titus 2:13 The author points out that the problem is not with the text, but with our understanding of English grammar. From the article:
In English, when two nouns are separated by the phrase and our, the context determines if the nouns refer to two persons or to two aspects of the same person. Consider the following sentence, "He was a great hero and our first president, General George Washington." This statement is not referring to two persons but two aspects of the same person. Washington was a great hero by anyone's standards, but he was not everyone's president. He was our president.
The author also comments on an important theological distinction made in the Geneva/AV rendering and lost in such renderings as found in the NIV:
The same is true of the phrase in Titus 2:13. When Christ returns He is coming as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16). He is returning as the great God (Titus 2:13; Revelation 19:17). Therefore, He will return as everyone's King, everyone's Lord, as the great God over all. But He is not everyone's Savior. He is only the Savior of those who have placed faith in Him. When He returns He is coming as the great God but He is also returning as our Savior, two aspects of the same Person.
Lest someone bring up the Granville-Sharp "Rule" one can read a refutation of it here, Vindication of certain passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament, addressed to Granville Sharp by Calvin Winstanley.
Last edited: