1 Cor 9:6 ULB ... Tom Warren #96
Labels
No Label
After June_2023 merge
Audio Waiting
Drew
Henry
Info - different
Info - missing
Info added
John
Needs TN
No Audio Yet
Not Urgent
Rendering
Susan
Tom
unreadable
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: WycliffeAssociates/en_ulb#96
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
The ULB now reads:
ULB now reads:
\v 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no authority to not labor?
Suggest changing to:
\v 6 Or is it I only and Barnabas, who have no right not to engage in a trade?
\v 6 ἢ μόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρναβᾶς οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι;
Seemed to merit that the order of the names follow on, I ... and Barnabas.
Speaking of Paul's trade is better understood than other kinds of work.
A tangled verse, it is.
Thanks Tom ...
@hmw3
@JohnH
@SusanQuigley
@TomWarren
1 Cor 9:6 ULB .... Issue 22to 1 Cor 9:6 ULB ... Tom WarrenHaving "I" first is awkward, but the NIV does it.
Another suggestion: Do only I and Barnabas not have the right to not work.
I only and Barnabas - It sounds awkward. I prefer "only Barnabas and I" because it is simpler and clearer. But the Appendix to the ULB says nothing about making changes simply to avoid awkwardness.
have no right versus do not have the right - I'm fine either way.
I like the clarity of "engage in a trade" or better "work at a trade." Paul was not asking about not working in general, because his ministry was work. But is "in/at a trade" implied info, which we normally do not make explicit?
I like the clarity of "Do only ... ?*" over "Is it only ... who... ?"
Sorry. I'm not much help.
If we use "not to work" or "not to labor," we'll need a TN explaining it.
I'm fine with "I" being placed first or second. We could add a note explaining why "I" is first if we decide to do that. I am also fine with "work at a trade."
Suggestion: Do only I and Barnabas not have the right to not work at a trade?
John, I like your wording... it's better.
Thanks. Tom
Suggest that our fix be applied.
The ULB currently reads:
\v 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no authority to not labor?
We are suggesting that the ULB of 1 Corinthians 9:6 be changed to read:
\v 6 Do only I and Barnabas not have the right to not work at a trade?
SQ I changed it to this.
\v 6 Or do only I and Barnabas not have the right to not work at a trade?