I used it in my Sunday School teaching yesterday. Here is an excerpt: ...the knowlege of Him is firmly implanted "in" Atheists even from their creation. Yes, even from their birth. Indeed, his existence is "clearly seen" even by deaf, dumb and blind people. Now, the newer translations (ESV, NET and NIV) are far more cautious than the KJV and ASV about using the word "in" for that verse. Cautious about using the spherical dative of the Greek word "en". And more cautious than the NASB translation that uses the word "within". The newer translations appeal more to the latest BDAG lexicon which suggests "in connection with" might be a more appropriate translation. I don't see that such caution is justified in this case. I don't see why the more personal and intense translation is not used. I don't see why the plain use of "in" is not used when it is surrounded by two Greek words that are translated "plain" by the same lexicon. It seems to fit the context better. And it seems to me that waffling on the word "in" compromises the clearness of His universal revelation to ALL. It compromises something historically known our sensus divinitas- our divine sense.
Thanks for that link Steve,
ReplyDeleteI used it in my Sunday School teaching yesterday.
Here is an excerpt:
...the knowlege of Him is firmly implanted "in" Atheists even from their creation. Yes, even from their birth. Indeed, his existence is "clearly seen" even by deaf, dumb and blind people.
Now, the newer translations (ESV, NET and NIV) are far more cautious than the KJV and ASV about using the word "in" for that verse. Cautious about using the spherical dative of the Greek word "en". And more cautious than the NASB translation that uses the word "within".
The newer translations appeal more to the latest BDAG lexicon which suggests "in connection with" might be a more appropriate translation. I don't see that such caution is justified in this case. I don't see why the more personal and intense translation is not used. I don't see why the plain use of "in" is not used when it is surrounded by two Greek words that are translated "plain" by the same lexicon. It seems to fit the context better. And it seems to me that waffling on the word "in" compromises the clearness of His universal revelation to ALL. It compromises something historically known our sensus divinitas- our divine sense.
http://quizzingdv.blogspot.ca/2013/11/romans-1-god-is-evident-to-all.html