Compare Bible Translations

This is a unique Bible study, showing many Bible verses in many different Bible translations.

Mark 14:6

καλὸν ἔργον ἠργάσατο ἐν ἐμοί

MLB	She has treated Me nobly.
Tynd	She hath done a good work on me.
KJV	she hath wrought a good work on me (Not the AV1611 on this page, since most people who have a KJV don’t have one.)
Douay	She hath wrought a good work upon me.
ASV	she hath wrought a good work on me.
YLT	a good work she wrought on me;
Recov	She has done a noble deed on Me.
ACV	She performed a good work on me.
Darby	she has wrought a good work as to me;
Wey	She has done a most gracious act towards me.
CBW	She has done a good deed to me.
BBE	she has done a kind act to me.
NASB	She has done a good deed to me.
Beck	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
RSV	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
ESV	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
NIV,TNIV	She has done a beautiful thing to me.
NLT	Why berate her for doing such a good thing to me?
MKJV	She has done a good work towards Me
LITV	She worked a good work toward Me
ALT	She worked a good work to Me [or, performed a good deed for Me]
Phil	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
JB	What she has done for me is one of the good works.
NKJV	She has done a good work for me
NAB	She has done a good thing for me.
REB	It is a fine thing she has done for me.
NRSV	She has performed a good service for me.
JNT	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
NCV	She did an excellent thing for me.
CEV	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
Mess	She has just done something wonderfully significant for me.
NET	She has done a good service for me.
WEB	She has done a good work for me.
ISV	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
GW	She has done a beautiful thing for me.
Alex	She did a beautiful service for me
HCSB	She has done a noble thing for me.
EMTV	She has worked a beautiful work for Me
NHEB	She has done a good work for me.
DRP	She has performed a good work with me.
The meaning here is a Jewish concept of good works. Jesus also said in the next verse, “The poor you always have with you, and you can do well with them whenever you want; but me you do not always have.” The Greek word sometimes is just a marker of the dative case, in this case a circumstantial indicator: “she has done a good work in the circumstance of my being here. Or, used me to perform a mitzvah.
Mark 15:2
Σὺ λέγεις.
You are saying
Wey	I am
Beck	Yes
CBW	Yes.
Phil	Yes, I am.
GW	Yes, I am.
NET	You say it yourself
Alex	You said it.”* Literally, “You say.”
NASB	It is as you say.
NKJV	It is as you say.
NIV	Yes, it is as you say
Recov.	It is as you say.
NLT	Yes, it is as you say.
EMTV	You are saying what is so.
Mess	If you say so
Tynd	thou sayest it.
KJV	Thou sayest it.
Douay	Thou sayest it.
ASV	Thou sayest.
Darby	Thou sayest.
MKJV	You say it
LITV	You say it
YLT	Thou dost say [it].
Phillips	You say that I am
RSV	You have said so.
ESV	You have said so.
TNIV	You have said so.
HCSB	You have said it.
MLB	So you say.
WEB	So you say.
ISV	You say so.
BBE	You say so.
NAB	You say so.
NRSV	You say so.
JB	It is you who say it
REB	The words are yours
JNT	The words are yours
NCV	Those are your words
CEV	Those are your words
ALT	_You_ are saying [it]
ACV	Thou say.
NHEB	So you say.
DRP	You are the one saying that.

I am quite sure that all of the translations that render the phrase Σὺ λέγεις as an affirmative answer, such as “Yes,” or “You are right in saying..,” are not accurate.  We are often told that ?? ?????? was an idiom in Greek for “Yes,” but I have seen no evidence of that.  On the contrary, ALL instances of the phrase Σὺ λέγεις in the Septuagint, which would be the brand of Greek the New Testament writers would be familiar with, do not mean “Yes,” but literally just as the words mean, “You are saying,” or “You are claiming.”  There are 10 instances of this exact phrase in the Septuagint: 1 Kings 3:23; 18:11; 1814; 2 Esdras 15:12; 16:8; Amos 7:16; Jeremiah 39:25, 36, 43; 47:16.  Not a single one of them means “Yes.”  For a spelling out of each of these examples, see the endnote in my translation of Mark.  If someone says Σὺ λέγεις is an idiom, I say “Prove it with examples from Biblical Greek literature.”  I have offered 10 proofs that it is NOT an idiom.

In addition, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy about the Lamb of God demands that Jesus not answer the question.  “As a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”  And Pilate’s reaction is telling.  We are told that Pilate was astonished that Jesus gave no answer, not to even a single charge.

Conclusion: The “dynamic equivalent” translations are often just junk.  Sometimes they are right about so-called idioms, but you generally are safer going with a more formal equivalent translation.

John 8:44b

ὅταν	λαλῇ	τὸ ψεῦδος,	ἐκ	τῶν ἰδίων	λαλεῖ,	ὄτι	ψεύστης	ἐστὶν	καὶ	ὁ πατὴρ	αὐτοῦ
when	he speaks	a lie	from	things of his own	he speaks	because	liar	he is	and	the father	of it

 

Tynd	When he speaketh a lie, then speaketh he of his own.  For he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Douay	When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
ASV	When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
MKJV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.
KJV	When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Darby	When he speaks falsehood, he speaks of what is his own; for he is a liar and its father.
NKJV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
Recov	When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own possessions; for he is a liar and the father of it.
ALT	Whe he is speaking falsehood, out of his own he speaks, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
LITV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
ACV	When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
MLB	When he tells a lie he talks naturally; for he is a liar and its father;
WEB	When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.
NHEB	When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father.
YLT	when one may speak the falsehood, of his own he speaketh, because he is a liar – also his father
Wey	Whenever he utters his lie, he utters it out of his own store; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
CBW	When he tells a lie, he speaks out of his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
Phil	Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks in character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
RSV	When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
ESV	When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NASB	Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
JB	when he lies he is drawing on his own store, because he is a liar, and the father of lies.
NIV	When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NAB	When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
REB	When he tells a lie he is speaking his own language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NRSV	When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NCV	When he tells a lie, he shows what he is really like, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
NLT	When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.
ISV	Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NET	Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
GW	Whenever he tells a lie, he’s doing what comes naturally to him.  He’s a liar and the father of lies.
Pick	Whenever he speaks the lie he speaks from his own things, because he is a liar and the father of lying.
EMTV	When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
Mess	When the Liar speaks, he makes it up out of his lying nature and fills the world with lies.
Ampl	When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false.
BBE	When he says what is false, it is natural to him, for he is false and the father of what is false
JNT	When he tells a lie, he is speaking in character; because he is a liar – indeed, the inventor of the lie!
CEV	He speaks on his own, and everything he says is a lie.  Not only is he a liar himself, but he is also the father of all lies.
HCSB	When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars
I am inclined more toward what the HCSB has. But, the genitive possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ here is difficult to interpret, and the BDF grammar, for John 8:44b, refers you to section 282(3), which says that αὐτοῦ is an attributive genitive, in a seemingly oblique case, (not in formal number/gender/case concord with any immediate noun or referent) which here is to be referred through ψεύστης to ὅταν λαλῇ to τὸ ψεῦδος, in other words, “the lie.”  But it also says that an interpretation such as that of the YLT is possible. The BAGD lexicon says, “The oblique cases of αὐτος very often (in a fashion customary since Homer) take the place of the 3rd person personal pronoun; in particular the genitive case replaces the missing possessive pronoun.” It says, in this case referring to a noun to be supplied from the context. This means that the options are “liar” and “the lie.”

 

John 6:39

ἵνα	πᾶν	ὃ	δέδωκέν	μοι
so that	all	which	he has given	to me

μὴ	ἀπολέσω	ἐξ	αὐτοῦ,	ἀλλὰ	ἀναστήσω	αὐτὸ	ἐν	τῇ	ἐσχάτῃ	ἡμέρᾳ
not	I might lose	of	it	but	raise up	it	in	the	last	day

This passage is related to John 6:37, which says “All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not drive away.”  Jesus is talking about human beings.

Tynd – that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing: but should raise it up again at the last day.
Douay – that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up in the last day.
KJV – that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
ASV – that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Darby – that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in the last day.
Wey – that of all that He has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it to life on theday.
MLB – that of all that He gave Me I shall lose nothing but shall raise it up at the last day.
NASB – that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
NAB – that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.
RSV – that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
ESV – that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
NRSV – that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Recov – that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up in the last day.
Pick that I should lose nothing out of all that He has given me, but should raise it up at the last day

I have two main problems with these above renderings.  One, just what is “it” that will be raised up at the last day?  Anything and everything that God has given the Son?  Surely not.  Let’s see, among the things God gave the Son are some sayings (John 17:8).  Are those sayings going to be raised again at the last day?  No.  They have never died.  God’s word abides for ever.  This is not what Jesus was saying.  There is only one thing he raises from the dead, and that is mortal humans.  Not demons.  Not words.  Not trees.  Not just anything is included in the “it.”

Two, there should be two “it”s in this verse.  And where is the phrase “of it” as in “I might not lose of it”?  it looks like they meant to combine the “pan” (all or every) in the beginning of the phrase, with the “of it” clause later.  I guess I’ll buy it.

The pronouns in this context are neuter in gender and singular in number. Now why? Are they referring back to the two “he’s” of verse 35, which are masculine in gender? In Greek, the parts of speech have to agree with each other in person, number, gender and case. Otherwise, you know that they are not linked. A neuter pronoun does not refer back to a masculine word.

JBP – that I should not lose anything of what he has given me, but should raise it up when the last day comes.

Again, this combines the “pan” in the beginning of the phrase, with the “of it” clause later, but with a different wording method.  And it is still too vague as to just what “it” is that will be raised up at the last day.

NIV – that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

Ampl. – that I should not lose any of all that He has given Me, but that I should give new life and raise [them all] up at the last day.

“Them”? How did neuter singular become plural? See my footnote on this in my translation of the gospel of John- for the theory of “attraction of the relative.”

TNIV – that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

GW – doesn’t want me to lose any of those he gave me.  He wants me to bring them back to life on the last day.

These go further in converting neuter singulars to plurals. Two neuter singulars converted to plurals, instead of just the one relative pronoun.

CEV – to make certain that none of the ones he has given me will be lost.  Instead, he wants me to raise them to life on the last day.

NCV – I must not lose even one whom God gave me, but I must raise them on the last day.

NLT – that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them to eternal life at the last day.

NET – that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day.

ISV – that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day.

BBE – I am not to let out of my hands anything which he has given me, but I am to give it new life on the last day.

REB – that I should not lose even one of those he has given me, but should raise them all up on the last day.

JB – that I should lose nothing of all that he has given to me, and that I should raise it up on the last day.

HCSB – that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day.

CBW – that I should lose none of all that He has given me, but should raise them to life on the last day.

JNT – that I should not lose any of all those he has given me but should raise them up on the Last Day.

These are accurate, assuming the “attraction of the relative” theory is correct, and it may well be.

 

Mess – that everything handed over to me by the Father be completed-not a single detail missed-and at the wrap-up of time I have everything and everyone put together, upright and whole.

WEB – that of all He has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day.

YLT – that all that He hath given to me I may not lose of it, but may raise it up in the last day;

ACV – that of all that he has given me I would not lose from it, but I will raise it up at the last day

DRP – that of all flesh that he has given me, I would not lose any of it, but raise it up at the last day.

Again, what is “it”? Putty? Tree bark? Money? It might be good to supply a word here, in my opinion, to have a decent, intelligible translation. The word “it” just sounds too odd. And the word “flesh” is a Semitic concept for mortal humanity. That truly is what he is talking about. And I put the word “flesh” in italics, to indicate to people that the word ???? “sarx” is not in the Greek text of this verse. In the phrase “That he would not lose any of ‘it’ “, we have a neuter pronoun.

I added the word “flesh” here for several reasons. One, is that the neuter singular pronoun “it” is just too weird, in my opinion, to use, when we are talking about people. Jesus is talking about people, everyone agrees. The word σὰρξ “sarx” is actually in the Greek text, in a similar passage later in John, in John 17:2, and “anthropoi” in John 17:6. John 17 is related to John 6:37, which says “All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not drive away.”  In both passages, Jesus is talking about humans that the father gives to him. Also in both passages, John uses neuter pronouns. True, σὰρξ “sarx” is feminine and “anthropoi” is masculine. But in English, the word “it” is neuter, so the word “flesh” works well for English. (I am not saying that words that are neuter case in Greek have to be neuter in English!)  I add words like I did here, only rarely, and when I do, I put the words added in italics, like I did here.

Now here, I am starting a section in which I evaluate translations as to accuracy.  These are my opinions, this is my web page.  Let us agree on this: I am not the last word on these points.  Okay?  These other translators certainly could know something I don’t know.  By the same token, I could know something they don’t know.  I will give reasons for my opinions.  These are points I have had to think about, in order to do my own translations from Greek to English. At the end, I will give a points total.

 

Luke 1:15b

καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ

and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, beginning yet in his mother’s womb.

BBE	from his birth

This one does not translate so many words.  It does not translate the word ??? (still or yet), it does not translate mother, and it does not translate womb.  It is also inaccurate regarding the timing of John’s being filled with the Spirit. Minus 4 points.

WEY	from the very hour of his birth
CBW	even from his birth
Phil	from the moment of his birth
MLB	and from his birth
NIV	even from birth
REB	From his very birth
NCV	even from birth
CEV	from the time he is born

 

These do not translate mother, and womb, and have the timing wrong.  Minus 3 points.

Mess from the moment he leaves his mother’s womb

This one has the timing wrong.  It also mistranslates the word ???.  Minus 2 points.

KJV even from his mother’s womb
Douay even from his mother’s womb
ASV even from his mother’s womb
Darby even from his mother’s womb
YLT even from his mother’s womb
WEB even from his mother’s womb
JB Even from his mother’s womb
RSV even from his mother’s womb
ESV even from his mother’s womb
NKJV even from his mother’s womb
Recov. even from his mother’s womb
NAB even from his mother’s womb
JNT even from his mother’s womb
ALT even from his mother’s womb
LITV even from his mother’s womb
MKJV even from his mother’s womb

These do not translate clearly enough to indicate that John was filled with the Spirit while still in the womb.  Minus 1 point.

NLT even before his birth
ISV even before he is born
NET even before his birth
GW even before he is born
NRSV even before his birth
TNIV even before he is born

The above get the timing right, but fail to translate mother and womb.  Could be minus 2, but since they got the very important timing right, I am only deducting 1 point.  Minus 1 point.

Tyndl even in his mother’s womb
NASB while yet in his mother’s womb
Alex while he is in his mother’s womb.
HCSB while still in his mother’s womb
EMTV while still in his mother’s womb
DRP beginning yet in his mother’s womb

These are correct.  We know it means that John would be filled with the Spirit even while still in the womb, because in Luke 1:41, 44, John, while he was a 6-month in-utero fetus, leaped “in exultation” (v. 44) when he heard the voice of the mother of his Lord. The angel predicted that he would be filled with the Spirit “yet from his mother’s womb.” That means “starting in his mother’s womb onward.” John was filled with the Spirit while still in his mother’s womb. Not just “from birth.” There is quite a difference. Luke used the words “mother’s womb,” because that is what he meant. If “from birth” is what he meant, he could have said that in Greek. But Luke, ‘the beloved physician,’ is attentive to the medical details for us. In Isaiah in the Septuagint, in chapter 44 verses 2 and 44, God said, “I am the one who formed you from the womb.” There, the Greek words are the same as here in the Luke passage, ἐκ κοιλιας. We know the forming began while still in the womb. The addition of the word ἔτι in the Luke passage just makes it all the more clear that God meant that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb, and forward from then on.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9

οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

primarily focusing on the rendering of ἀρσενοκοίτης.  The etymological constituency of this word is, ἄρσην (or ἄρσεν) meaning “male, of the male sex”, and κοίτη meaning “a bed,” euphemistically used for sexual intercourse, thus, males in a bed together together for purposes of sexual activity.  I know, people will immediately say that words do not mean the total of their etymological constituency.  But sometimes that is all we have to go by.  Homosexual theologians would have us believe that there are no scriptures referring to “modern” homosexuality at all.  They will tell you that many forms of homosexuality were allowed in the ancient world.  That is irrelevant, since among the people of God,  homosexuality has always been forbidden.  So there must have always been a word for that which was forbidden.  And this is the word in the Greek language.

The BAGD definition of ἀρσενοκοίτης:

“a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite”

I have grouped the translations as follows:

Mess: (all sexual sins, both hetero and homo, are lumped together, losing specificity!)

This one gets minus 3 accuracy points.

Tynd: neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind
KJV: nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
Douay: nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind
ASV: nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men
Darby: nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men

“Abusers of themselves with mankind”, what does that mean? Those who punch themselves in the face, or eat too much, along with the rest of humanity?

“Liers with mankind”? Someone who lies down like the rest of humanity?

“Abusers of themselves with men”? People who join male adults in punching themselves in the face? Or cutting themselves with stones? Very vague.  I reject this group of renderings.  They are very misleading.  Minus two accuracy points.

Wey: nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime
CBW: guilty of unnatural sexual vice
MLB: nor partakers in homosexuality
RSV: sexual perverts
Ampl: those who participate in homosexuality
REB: sexual pervert
GW: homosexuals
ESV: men who practice homosexuality

I reject this above group of renderings, because they do not distinguish between the two different Greek words. (True the ESV explains their interpretation of the two Greek words in the footnotes, as the passive vs. active homosexual actors, but that should have been shown in the scripture text itself, if it is really true.)  They are also too unspecific.  The Message rendering is really bad. And take the RSV and REB, “sexual perverts.” That is just too broad and unspecific. A heterosexual adult male who prefers 8 year old girl sexual partners, is a sexual pervert, but not what is meant by these Greek words.  Minus two accuracy points.  The ESV I give credit for showing that males specifically are being referred to here, so for the ESV, minus only 1 point.

YLT: nor effeminate, nor sodomites

JB: catamites, sodomites

NKJV: nor homosexuals, nor sodomites

NRSV: male prostitutes, sodomites

I reject this above group of renderings, because the word “sodomite” is too misleading.  Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate dictionary defines “sodomite” as “one who practices sodomy.” And the word “sodomy” includes acts that are not homosexual per se, such as oral sex performed on a man, including by a woman, and anal sex between a man and a woman, and bestiality. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “sodomy” as follows: “While variously defined in state criminal statutes, is generally oral or anal copulation between humans, or between humans and animals.” These several and various acts are called “sodomy” today, but are not what is meant by these Greek words specifically. Therefore, the rendering “sodomite” is not accurate.  Minus one accuracy point.

Phil neither the effeminate, the pervert

BBE or is less than a man, or makes a wrong use of men

CEV: or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual

I reject the third rendering, because “behaves like a homosexual” is too vague. To many people, this might mean, a person who is limp-wristed or something. No, sexuality specifically is what is meant. Again, the word “pervert” is just too general and unspecific.  Minus one accuracy point each.  The BBE rendering is too vague.  For example, does “less than a man” mean he has been emasculated?  If so, that would not be the meaning of the Greek word  μαλᾶκός -  malakos.  And “makes a wrong use of men” is not specific enough.  Minus 1 point.

 

NIV: nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

TNIV: nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

NAB: nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

NET: passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

The above renderings raise the question, whether it is okay to be a homosexual, as long as you are not a “homosexual offender” or a “practicing homosexual.” In other words, do you have to actually perform a homosexual sexual act, to be committing the sin of homosexuality, or is the very lust for a person of the same sex, the sin of homosexuality? I am persuaded that the latter is the case, in view of Jesus’ teachings, that a heterosexual does not have to actually have coitus with someone to have committed adultery, but rather, for example, if a man looks upon a woman who is not his wife, for the purpose of lusting for her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The Biblical principle is, that the lust itself is the sin against God’s creation and purpose, not only the act of carrying out that lust. In the same way, the desire for the person of the same sex, this desire itself is a sin against God’s purposes and creation; the acting out of the homosexual lust is not required for there to be committed the sin of homosexuality.

On the other hand, if by “practicing homosexual,” the distinction meant is whether the homosexuality is a persistent, habitual, unrepentant lifestyle, versus someone who has the orientation and lust, and may occasionally succumb to it, but does call it sin, and does repent, and keep getting up, and trying again in his struggle against the unnatural desire, and fights the good fight of the faith, then this meaning I can accept.

But there is still something that troubles many Christians about this rendering.  Should not the same word “practicing” be added then to all the other sins in this list?  Like this, “practicing fornicators, practicing idolaters, practicing adulterers” etc.  Indeed, that really IS what it means.  Because if fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God, then none of us will, because we all stumble in these areas some time.  So what is disturbing, is the seeming favoritism being shown to the sin of homosexuality in these renderings.

Moreover, specific examples can be given of homosexuals quoting these translations to prove that their orientation is not wrong, as long as they are not “offending.”  Or “practicing.”  Therefore, these renderings I cannot say are adequate.  Minus 1 point.

JNT: who engage in active or passive homosexuality

This differentiates between active and passive male homosexuality. The NET seems to agree with this, and the ESV also mentions this in its footnotes. This distinction I am not going to cover here.  I am not convinced that these renderings are correct.  But at least they condemn homosexuality, as this passage in fact does.

NASB: nor effeminate, nor homosexuals
Recov: nor effeminate nor homosexuals
NLT: male prostitutes, homosexuals
WEB: nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,
ISV: male prostitutes, homosexuals
HCSB: male prostitutes, homosexuals

The above renderings are adequate.

NCV: those who are male prostitutes; or men who have sexual relations with other men

This is as clear and accurate as you can get, regarding the word ἀρσενοκοίτης – arsenokoiths.  Plus one accuracy point.

CONCLUSION: Which translations are “soft on homosexuality.”  This is in response to a recent conversation.   The King James Version is the rendering that is softest on homosexuality.  Because it does not even name homosexuality in this list of sins.  Readings like this are one of the reasons that the King James Version is no longer adequate as the standard English translation for every day use in churches and home.

Luke 1:49b-50

καὶ ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 50 καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν

and – holy – the – name – of him – and – the – mercy – of him – into – ages – and – ages – to the – ones fearing – him

In this passage, it is interesting to see what the translators do with the elided verbs (omitted as implied), and with sentence division, and with the preposition ???.

Tynd and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him throughout all generations.
KJV and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Douay and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
ASV And holy is his name. And his mercy is unto generations and generations On them that fear him.
Darby and holy is his name; and his mercy to generations and generations to them that fear him.
YLT And holy [is] His name, and His kindness [is] to generations of generations, To those fearing him,
Wey Holy is his name! and His compassion is, generation after generation, Upon those who fear Him.
CBW And holy is His name! He shows His mercy from age to age To those who fear him.
Phil oh, holy is his Name! Truly, his mercy rests on those who fear him in every generation.
MLB His name is holy and His mercy is to those who reverence Him through all generations.
BBE and holy is his name.  His mercy is for all generations in whom is the fear of him.
NASB And holy is His name. and his mercy is upon generation after generation toward those who fear him
JB Holy is his name, and his mercy reaches from age to age for those who fear him.
RSV and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.
ESV and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.
NKJV And holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation.
NIV -holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.
TNIV -holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.
Recov and holy is His name. And His mercy is unto generations and generations, unto those who fear Him.

NAB   and holy is his name. His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.

REB    His name is holy, his mercy sure from generation to generation toward those who fear him.

NRSV and holy is his name. His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation

JNT     Indeed, his name is holy; and in every generation he has mercy on those who fear him.

NCV   His name is holy. God will show his mercy forever and ever to those who worship and serve him.

Mess   whose very name is holy, set apart from all the others. His mercy flows in wave after wave on those who are in awe before him.
CEV    and his name is holy. He always shows mercy to everyone who worships him.

NLT    For he, the Mighty One, is holy, his mercy goes on from generation to generation, to all who fear him.

WEB   Holy is his name. His mercy is for generations of generations on those who fear him.

ISV      His name is holy. His mercy lasts from generation to generation for those who fear him.

NET    and holy is his name; his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.

GW     His name is holy. For those who fear him, his mercy lasts throughout every generation.

Alex    the One who is Omniscient and [whose] name is Holy. And His Grace for centuries, …over those generations who submit to Him.

Wilt    holy is his name. His mercy from age to age to those who fear him

HCSB  and holy is his name. His mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear Him

DRP    And holy will be his name, and his mercy to those who fear him, into age after age.

I think that the context preceding this passage sets things in the future. Like this:

So behold: all the ages after now will consider me blessed, 49because the Mighty One did great things for me. And holy will be his name, 50and his mercy to those who fear him, into age after age.

In my translation of Luke, I have extensive footnotes on Luke chapter one. That can be downloaded from another page on this web site.

This passage is difficult to translate.  But I do give plus one accuracy point to those translations that recognized that the Greek phrase εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς in the Septuagint means “for ever and ever”  into the future.  This chapter of Luke, like the Septuagint, is “Jewish Greek.”  So, plus one accuracy point each, to NCV, BBE and DRP.  The rendering of the BBE is not bad: for all generations.  That could be future; it is ambiguous.

To continue this Bible study, to compare Bible translations on many other Bible verses, see the original page.