Text & Translation Note: John

[@rosslewchuk9286]

Thank you for keeping us on track concerning both text and translation!🙏📖

[@theoldpaths644]

Thank you Pastor Riddle, thoroughly enjoyed that message. Makes perfect spiritual & contextual sense to maintain "man". Keep up the good work for The Lord brother.

[@stevenhayes1611]

Very helpful and edifying discussion, thanks Pastor Riddle. I find this kind of thing is what you tend to get in the modern versions produced by academics, who so often argue that translation of the Scriptures should not be influenced by one’s theology (and that’s why it’s ok for Unitarians, Roman Catholics, and even Mormons to participate with Evangelicals in translation projects, so they tell us). But such sterile and stale translation attempts often miss, or ignore, the theological context of a passage and end up missing important contextual clues that are necessary to inform a proper translation. I think you’ve made a strong argument that that is the case in this instance.

[@Wanttoknowabout]

The NKJV also has "... for joy that a human being has been born into the world."

[@rosslewchuk9286]

I noted this as well, with a bit of consternation. The NKJV is my modern translation of choice. Now we know why the Lord sent us Dr. Riddle!

[@JimboRicheson]

As always, your research is, indeed, spot on in substantiating a deeper sense of orthodox and evangelical nuances tending to confirm God's role, for things, in this case the fact that Adam failed in his stewardship, whereas Jesus, fulfilled God's purpose for the man, which Adam abdicated, like the King who abdicated for "love." Paul admonished in First Corinthians 16:13, "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." The note on this verse, from Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, says: "Behave yourself like men, be courageous." The idea seems to be evident that God has a stewardship role especially for men, which the passage in John is alluding to. It seems to bring notice to this by John there. It is communicating the idea of how God had to re-supply, as it were, in the last Adam a just and faithful steward to be existentially, to live out, demonstrate the truth of this essential premise that man is vested with authority to vindicate His purpose for creation. Thanks for unveiling, so to say, God's meaning for man in hierarchical duties to set forth.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Someone mentioned this verse in my livestream yesterday. I would disagree with the NKJV here (as much as I like it). Human being 1) it sounds grating, nobody talks like that. I believe in my live stream I responded sarcastically with "congratulations honey, you gave birth to a human being". 2) I wasn't aware of ESVs "Child" rendering which is simply wrong. I'd be curious to understand what the committee was thinking here. 3) It's hard NOT to see some Christological significance here (unless one were not looking), and I would think that should impact how anthropos is translated here. I think to add to the discussion. There is a certain appearance that modern translations tend to move away from masculine references and as time moves on it becomes more and more noticeable (look at the editions of the NASB 1995 to 2020, or the NIV for progression). I doubt that translators (you mentioned Grudem is complementarian) are doing this on purpose, but there is something to be said of the culture rubbing off on us even in subconcious ways. Our prayer ought to be, keep us 'unspotted from the world'.

[@nancybryson5488]

This is probably neither here nor there, but I think most mothers-to-be of that era were hoping for a boy (a man). Aside from that, I would like to ask the men responsible for the LSB why in the world they used "child" twice when the inspired author clearly made a deliberate distinction. If every word of scripture is important, why blur over the nuance?

[@rosslewchuk9286]

Before reading your comment, the same thought concerning Jewish mothers-to-be also came to my mind.

[@marianostaropoli]

💯❤👍🙏