Romans 2:26

From Textus Receptus

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→English Translations)
Line 80: Line 80:
==English Translations==
==English Translations==
-
[[Image:Matthew 1.1 KJV.JPG|300px|thumb|right|[[Matthew 1:1]] in the [[1611 AD|1611]] [[King James Version]]]]
 
* [[1380 AD|1380]] ([[Wyclif's Bible]] by [[John Wycliffe]])
* [[1380 AD|1380]] ([[Wyclif's Bible]] by [[John Wycliffe]])
-
* [[1395 AD|1395]] ([[Wyclif's Bible]] by [[John Wycliffe]])
+
* [[1395 AD|1395]] Therfor if prepucie kepe the riytwisnessis of the lawe, whethir his prepucie schal not be arettid in to circumcisioun? ([[Wyclif's Bible]] by [[John Wycliffe]])
-
* [[1534 AD|1534]] ([[Tyndale Bible]] by [[William Tyndale]])
+
* [[1534 AD|1534]] Therfore if the vncircumcised kepe the ryght thinges contayned in the lawe: shall not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ([[Tyndale Bible]] by [[William Tyndale]])
-
* [[1535 AD|1535]] (Coverdale Bible)
+
* [[1535 AD|1535]] Therfore yf the vncircumcision kepe the righte thinges conteyned in the lawe, shal not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Coverdale Bible)
* [[1539 AD|1539]] ([[Great Bible]] First Edition - [[Miles Coverdale]])
* [[1539 AD|1539]] ([[Great Bible]] First Edition - [[Miles Coverdale]])
-
* [[1540 AD|1540]] ([[Great Bible]] Second Edition - [[Miles Coverdale]])
+
* [[1540 AD|1540]] Therfore, yf the vncircumcised kepe þe ryght thynges contayned in the lawe, shall not his vncircumcisyon be counted for circumcisyon? ([[Great Bible]] Second Edition - [[Miles Coverdale]])
-
 
+
-
* [[1549 AD|1549]] ([[Matthew's Bible]] - [[John Rogers]])
+
 +
* [[1549 AD|1549]] Therfore yf the vncircumcised kepe the right thynges conteyned in the lawe: shall not hys vncircumcysyon be counted for circumcision? ([[Matthew's Bible]] - [[John Rogers]])
 +
* [[1557 AD|1557]] (Geneva [[1557 AD|1557]])
* [[1557 AD|1557]] (Geneva [[1557 AD|1557]])
* [[1560 AD|1560]] ([[Geneva Bible]]) First Edition
* [[1560 AD|1560]] ([[Geneva Bible]]) First Edition
-
* [[1568 AD|1568]] ([[Bishop's Bible]] First Edition
+
* [[1568 AD|1568]] Therefore if the vncircumcisio kepe the ordinaunces of the law, shall not his vncircumcisio be counted for circumcisio? ([[Bishop's Bible]] First Edition
* [[1582 AD|1582]] (Rheims [[1582 AD|1582]])
* [[1582 AD|1582]] (Rheims [[1582 AD|1582]])
-
* [[1587 AD|1587]] ([[Geneva Bible]]) by [[William Whittingham]]
+
* [[1587 AD|1587]] Therefore if the vncircumcision keepe the ordinances of the Lawe, shall not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ([[Geneva Bible]]) by [[William Whittingham]]
* [[1599 AD|1599]] ([[Geneva Bible]]) by [[William Whittingham]]
* [[1599 AD|1599]] ([[Geneva Bible]]) by [[William Whittingham]]
-
* [[1611 AD|1611]] ([[King James Version]])
+
* [[1611 AD|1611]] Therefore, if the vncircumcision keepe the righteousnesse of the Law, shall not his vncircumcision be counted for Circumcision? ([[King James Version]])
-
* [[1729 AD|1729]] ([[Mace New Testament]])
+
* [[1729 AD|1729]] if therefore an uncircumcised Gentile keep the moral precepts contained in the law, shall not he be reckon'd, as if he were circumcised? ([[Mace New Testament]])
-
* [[1745 AD|1745]] (Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament)
+
* [[1745 AD|1745]] Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament)
* [[1762 AD|1762]] ([[King James Version]])
* [[1762 AD|1762]] ([[King James Version]])
-
* [[1769 AD|1769]] ([[King James Version]] - [[Benjamin Blayney]])
+
* [[1769 AD|1769]] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ([[King James Version]] - [[Benjamin Blayney]])
-
* [[1770 AD|1770]] (Worsley Version by John Worsley)
+
* [[1770 AD|1770]] Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteous precepts of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be accounted to him for circumcision? (Worsley Version by John Worsley)
-
* [[1790 AD|1790]] (Wesley Version by John Wesley)
+
* [[1790 AD|1790]] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Wesley Version by John Wesley)
-
* [[1795 AD|1795]] (A Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by Thomas Haweis)
+
* [[1795 AD|1795]] If then the uncircumcision observe the righteous judgments of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision? (A Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by Thomas Haweis)
-
* [[1833 AD|1833]] (Webster Version - by [[Noah Webster]])
+
* [[1833 AD|1833]] Therefore, if the uncircumcision keepeth the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Webster Version - by [[Noah Webster]])
-
* [[1835 AD|1835]] (Living Oracles by Alexander Campbell)  
+
* [[1835 AD|1835]] And if the uncircumcision keep the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Living Oracles by Alexander Campbell)  
-
* [[1849 AD|1849]] ([[Etheridge Translation]] by [[John Etheridge]])
+
* [[1849 AD|1849]] But if the uncircumcision shall keep the commandment of the law, is not uncircumcisedness reckoned to him (as) circumcision? ([[Etheridge Translation]] by [[John Etheridge]])
* [[1850 AD|1850]] ([[King James Version]] by Committee)
* [[1850 AD|1850]] ([[King James Version]] by Committee)
-
* [[1851 AD|1851]] (Murdock Translation)
+
* [[1851 AD|1851]] And if uncircumcision should keep the precepts of the law, would not that uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? (Murdock Translation)
* [[1855 AD|1855]] [[Calvin Bible]] by the [[Calvin Translation Society]]
* [[1855 AD|1855]] [[Calvin Bible]] by the [[Calvin Translation Society]]
-
* [[1858 AD|1858]] (The New Testament Translated from the Original Greek by [[Leicester Sawyer]])
+
* [[1858 AD|1858]] If therefore the uncircumcision keeps the ordinances of the law, shall not its uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision? (The New Testament Translated from the Original Greek by [[Leicester Sawyer]])
-
* [[1865 AD|1865]] ([[The Emphatic Diaglott]] by [[Benjamin Wilson]])  
+
* [[1865 AD|1865]] If therefore the uncircumcision the ordinances of the law may keep, not the uncircumcision of him for circumcision will be counted? ([[The Emphatic Diaglott]] by [[Benjamin Wilson]])  
-
* [[1865 AD|1865]] (The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 by American Bible Union)
+
* [[1865 AD|1865]] If then the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 by American Bible Union)
-
* [[1869 AD|1869]] (Noyes Translation by George Noyes)  
+
* [[1869 AD|1869]] If then he who is uncircumcised keep the precepts of the Law, shall not he though uncircumcised be regarded as circumcised? (Noyes Translation by George Noyes)  
-
* [[1873 AD|1873]] ([[King James Version]]) by [[Frederick Scrivener]])
+
* [[1873 AD|1873]] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ([[King James Version]]) by [[Frederick Scrivener]])
-
* [[1885 AD|1885]] (Revised Version also called English Revised Version - Charles Ellicott editor)
+
* [[1885 AD|1885]] If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? (Revised Version also called English Revised Version - Charles Ellicott editor)
-
* [[1890 AD|1890]] (Darby Version 1890 by [[John Darby]])
+
* [[1890 AD|1890]] If therefore the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision, (Darby Version 1890 by [[John Darby]])
-
* [[1898 AD|1898]] ([[Young's Literal Translation]] by [[Robert Young]])
+
* [[1898 AD|1898]] If, therefore the uncircumcision the righteousness of the law may keep, shall not his uncircumcision for circumcision be reckoned? ([[Young's Literal Translation]] by [[Robert Young]])
-
* [[1901 AD|1901]] ([[American Standard Version]] - [[Philip Schaff]])
+
* [[1901 AD|1901]] If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? ([[American Standard Version]] - [[Philip Schaff]])
-
* [[1902 AD|1902]] (The Emphasised Bible Rotherham Version)
+
* [[1902 AD|1902]] If then, the uncircumcision, be guarding the righteous requirement of the law, shall not, his uncircumcision, as circumcision be reckoned? (The Emphasised Bible Rotherham Version)
-
* [[1902 AD|1902]] (Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by William Godbey)
+
* [[1902 AD|1902]] Then if uncircumcision may keep the righteousness of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by William Godbey)
-
* [[1904 AD|1904]] (The New Testament: Revised and Translated by [[Adolphus Worrell]])
+
* [[1904 AD|1904]] If, therefore, the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he reckoned for circumcision? (The New Testament: Revised and Translated by [[Adolphus Worrell]])
-
* [[1904 AD|1904]] (Twentieth Century New Testament by Ernest Malan and Mary Higgs)
+
* [[1904 AD|1904]] If, then, an uncircumcised man pays regard to the requirements of the Law, will not he, although not circumcised, be regarded by God as if he were? (Twentieth Century New Testament by Ernest Malan and Mary Higgs)
* [[1911 AD|1911]] (Syrus Scofield)
* [[1911 AD|1911]] (Syrus Scofield)
Line 166: Line 165:
* [[1912 AD|1912]] (Weymouth New Testament)  
* [[1912 AD|1912]] (Weymouth New Testament)  
-
* [[1918 AD|1918]] (The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript by Henry Anderson)
+
* [[1918 AD|1918]] If, then, the uncircumcision keep the judgments of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript by Henry Anderson)
* [[1923 AD|1923]] (Edgar Goodspeed)
* [[1923 AD|1923]] (Edgar Goodspeed)
Line 172: Line 171:
* [[1982 AD|1982]] ([[New King James Version]])
* [[1982 AD|1982]] ([[New King James Version]])
-
* [[1984 AD|1984]] ([[New International Version]])  
+
* [[1984 AD|1984]] So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? ([[New International Version]])  
-
* [[1995 AD|1995]] ([[New American Standard Bible]])  (©1995)
+
* [[1995 AD|1995]] So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? ([[New American Standard Bible]])  (©1995)
* [[1999 AD|1999]] ([[American King James Version]])[[AKJV]]
* [[1999 AD|1999]] ([[American King James Version]])[[AKJV]]
Line 181: Line 180:
* ([[BBE]])
* ([[BBE]])
-
* ([[Holman Christian Standard Bible]])
+
* Therefore if an uncircumcised man keeps the law’s requirements, will his uncircumcision not be counted as circumcision? ([[Holman Christian Standard Bible]])
-
* ([[21st Century King James Version]])
+
* Therefore if the Uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ([[21st Century King James Version]])
-
* ([[Common English Bible]])
+
* So if the person who isn’t circumcised keeps the Law, won’t his status of not being circumcised be counted as if he were circumcised? ([[Common English Bible]])
-
* ([[GOD’S WORD Translation]])
+
* So if a man does what those laws demand, won’t he be considered circumcised even if he is uncircumcised? ([[GOD’S WORD Translation]])
-
* ([[Contemporary English Version]])
+
* In fact, if they obey the Law, they are as good as anyone who is circumcised. ([[Contemporary English Version]])
-
* ([[New Living Translation]])
+
* And if the Gentiles obey God’s law, won’t God declare them to be his own people? ([[New Living Translation]])
-
* ([[Amplified Bible]])
+
* So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be credited to him as [equivalent to] circumcision? ([[Amplified Bible]])
-
* ([[The Message]])
+
* 25-29 Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God’s law. But if you don’t, it’s worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God’s ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God’s law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don’t you see: It’s not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It’s the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics. ([[The Message]])
-
* ([[New International Reader's Version]])
+
* Sometimes those who aren’t circumcised do what the law requires. Won’t God accept them as if they had been circumcised? ([[New International Reader's Version]])
* ([[Wycliffe New Testament]])
* ([[Wycliffe New Testament]])

Revision as of 12:46, 2 July 2013

  • ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 2:26 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ οὐχί ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται

(Textus Receptus, Theodore Beza, 1598)

  • Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

  • Romans 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

(Textus Receptus Version)

Contents

Interlinear

Commentary

Greek

Textus Receptus

Desiderius Erasmus

Colinæus

Stephanus (Robert Estienne)

Theodore Beza

See Also Matthew 1:1 Beza 1598 (Beza)

  • 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)

Elzevir

Scholz

Scrivener

  • 1894 (? ????? ???T???)

Other Greek

  • 1857 (Tregelles' Greek New Testament)
  • (Tischendorf 8th Ed.)
  • 1881 (Westcott & Hort)
  • (Greek orthodox Church)

Anglo Saxon Translations

  • 1000 (Anglo-Saxon Gospels Manuscript 140, Corpus Christi College by Aelfric)
  • 1200 (Anglo-Saxon Gospels Hatton Manuscript 38, Bodleian Library by unknown author)

English Translations

  • 1395 Therfor if prepucie kepe the riytwisnessis of the lawe, whethir his prepucie schal not be arettid in to circumcisioun? (Wyclif's Bible by John Wycliffe)
  • 1534 Therfore if the vncircumcised kepe the ryght thinges contayned in the lawe: shall not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Tyndale Bible by William Tyndale)
  • 1535 Therfore yf the vncircumcision kepe the righte thinges conteyned in the lawe, shal not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Coverdale Bible)
  • 1540 Therfore, yf the vncircumcised kepe þe ryght thynges contayned in the lawe, shall not his vncircumcisyon be counted for circumcisyon? (Great Bible Second Edition - Miles Coverdale)
  • 1549 Therfore yf the vncircumcised kepe the right thynges conteyned in the lawe: shall not hys vncircumcysyon be counted for circumcision? (Matthew's Bible - John Rogers)
  • 1568 Therefore if the vncircumcisio kepe the ordinaunces of the law, shall not his vncircumcisio be counted for circumcisio? (Bishop's Bible First Edition
  • 1611 Therefore, if the vncircumcision keepe the righteousnesse of the Law, shall not his vncircumcision be counted for Circumcision? (King James Version)
  • 1729 if therefore an uncircumcised Gentile keep the moral precepts contained in the law, shall not he be reckon'd, as if he were circumcised? (Mace New Testament)
  • 1745 Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament)
  • 1770 Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteous precepts of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be accounted to him for circumcision? (Worsley Version by John Worsley)
  • 1790 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Wesley Version by John Wesley)
  • 1795 If then the uncircumcision observe the righteous judgments of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision? (A Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by Thomas Haweis)
  • 1833 Therefore, if the uncircumcision keepeth the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Webster Version - by Noah Webster)
  • 1835 And if the uncircumcision keep the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Living Oracles by Alexander Campbell)
  • 1851 And if uncircumcision should keep the precepts of the law, would not that uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? (Murdock Translation)
  • 1858 If therefore the uncircumcision keeps the ordinances of the law, shall not its uncircumcision be accounted for circumcision? (The New Testament Translated from the Original Greek by Leicester Sawyer)
  • 1865 If then the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 by American Bible Union)
  • 1869 If then he who is uncircumcised keep the precepts of the Law, shall not he though uncircumcised be regarded as circumcised? (Noyes Translation by George Noyes)
  • 1885 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? (Revised Version also called English Revised Version - Charles Ellicott editor)
  • 1890 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision, (Darby Version 1890 by John Darby)
  • 1902 If then, the uncircumcision, be guarding the righteous requirement of the law, shall not, his uncircumcision, as circumcision be reckoned? (The Emphasised Bible Rotherham Version)
  • 1902 Then if uncircumcision may keep the righteousness of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by William Godbey)
  • 1904 If, therefore, the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he reckoned for circumcision? (The New Testament: Revised and Translated by Adolphus Worrell)
  • 1904 If, then, an uncircumcised man pays regard to the requirements of the Law, will not he, although not circumcised, be regarded by God as if he were? (Twentieth Century New Testament by Ernest Malan and Mary Higgs)
  • 1911 (Syrus Scofield)
  • 1912 (Weymouth New Testament)
  • 1918 If, then, the uncircumcision keep the judgments of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript by Henry Anderson)
  • 1923 (Edgar Goodspeed)
  • 1984 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? (New International Version)
  • 1995 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? (New American Standard Bible) (©1995)
  • (BBE)
  • Therefore if an uncircumcised man keeps the law’s requirements, will his uncircumcision not be counted as circumcision? (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
  • Therefore if the Uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (21st Century King James Version)
  • So if the person who isn’t circumcised keeps the Law, won’t his status of not being circumcised be counted as if he were circumcised? (Common English Bible)
  • So if a man does what those laws demand, won’t he be considered circumcised even if he is uncircumcised? (GOD’S WORD Translation)
  • In fact, if they obey the Law, they are as good as anyone who is circumcised. (Contemporary English Version)
  • And if the Gentiles obey God’s law, won’t God declare them to be his own people? (New Living Translation)
  • So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be credited to him as [equivalent to] circumcision? (Amplified Bible)
  • 25-29 Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God’s law. But if you don’t, it’s worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God’s ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God’s law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don’t you see: It’s not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It’s the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics. (The Message)
  • Sometimes those who aren’t circumcised do what the law requires. Won’t God accept them as if they had been circumcised? (New International Reader's Version)
  • (Wycliffe New Testament)

Foreign Language Versions

Arabic

  • (Arabic Smith & Van Dyke)

Aramaic

  • (Aramaic Peshitta)

Basque

Bulgarian

  • 1940 (Bulgarian Bible)

Chinese

  • 1 (Chinese Union Version (Simplified))
  • 1 (Chinese Union Version (Traditional))

French

  • (French Darby)
  • 1744 (Martin 1744)
  • 1744 (Ostervald 1744)

German

  • 1545 (Luther 1545)
  • 1871 (Elberfelder 1871)
  • 1912 (Luther 1912)

Italian

  • 1649(Giovanni Diodati Bible 1649)
  • 1927 (Riveduta Bible 1927)

Japanese

Latin

  • 1527 (Erasmus 1527)
  • 1527 (Erasmus Vulgate 1527)

Pidgin

  • 1996 (Pidgin King Jems)

Romainian

  • 2010 (Biblia Traducerea Fidela în limba româna)

Russian

Phonetically:

Spanish

  • (RVG Spanish)

Swedish

  • 1917 (Swedish - Svenska 1917)

Tagalog

  • 1905 (Ang Dating Biblia 1905)

Tok Pisin

  • 1996 (Tok Pisin King Jems)

Vietnamese

See Also

External Links

Retrieved from "http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Romans_2:26"
Personal tools