This difference between the NLT and other translations on a specific passage serves as a good example on why use of a variety of translations can be important.
Such a good reminder that every translation makes interpretive choices. Comparing versions can show us where wording carries more weight than we realized. Hosea’s immediate message is about Israel’s restoration, while the “third day” language also invites Christians to read the passage in light of Christ’s resurrection. We do not need to choose between context and fulfillment—we need to read carefully enough to honor both.
I had memorized both the “three even for four” and the “six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him” and have noticed this pattern with numbers, but had never understood it. Thanks for that brief insight
Always helpful to have more than one English translation/version plus a Greek-English primer or inter-linear Bible.
Plus, it is also a wise practice to read every Biblical book and Epistle with three things in mind: culture, audience and context; the Bible is not a flat text.
(Oh, I would definitely push aside the ESV 🫤)
LastIy, I could spend all day studying my Bibles but it would be useless if all that reading didn't encourage me towards transforming into the likeness of Christ 🌱 That's the idea, isn't it!?
People often ask me what version of the Bible I used in metering and rhyming and generally creating the Psalm Hymns. I often feel the question is a trap, and I don't always answer. Truthfully, I did this. I searched out several versions. Thank you for validating such a practice.
I am not a fan of translations that flatten the original meaning. Even the CBS states that Phoebe is a “servant”. She was a deacon. The Greek and Hebrew are hard to translate. This is my sniff text. Going straight to Romans 16 and seeing what the translation does to Phoebe and Junia. No one has time for any kind of sideways dismissal of women anymore. Even Genesis states that Eve and her weight are in the same neighborhood of how God refers to Himself.
It’s a challenge. Thank God the spirit has filtered out the noise of misogyny for me. Thank you for a thoughtful post!
Several years ago when I was sending out my pastoral resumé to churches, there was one in Colorado that wouldn't even consider me after they found out I won't/don't use multiple versions. If I want to know how words can be rendered in other ways, that's what my concordance and other language helps are for. Besides, comparing various versions many times is comparing apples to oranges because the source materials are different. So they won't translate the same.
I love YouVersion & their devotional options, and am super excited to learn about this Compare feature! Thanks for that! 👍
I'm also curious, as a former Precept/Kay Arthur student, if you have thoughts about the NASB, which I've been assured repeatedly is the most accurate version (if not the most flowing for readability). In this case, it was very similar to the ones you used:
Hosea 6:2 NASB1995
"He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him."
Except I *do* subjectively like the phrasing to "live in His presence" more than "live before Him", just seems more close/intimate imo. I also like the Amplified Version and will probably remember to check it more often after reading this! ☺️
May I suggest a book for you to read? The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers by Abner Chou argues that the Old Testament writers knew well what they were saying. He makes a powerful case showing how Old Testament intertextuality took previous revelation, exegeted it correctly, and then built new revelation on its foundation. That third day raising up may well have been deliberate; having been built on the third day saving of Isaac from being sacrificed.
Have you read Starlight In Time by Russell Humphreys, @Michael Bellamy? A couple of my close family members who have degrees in astrophysics (or other science backgrounds but are hardcore astronomy nerds) recommend this book as one possible model for Christians seeking to reconcile the conflict between data supporting a young earth vs. data supporting an ancient universe.
I have a humanities background and got lost after the first couple of chapters of Starlight In Time, but the thesis mostly made sense. For me, God is the Creator of everything and I affirm Genesis as a true account but the actual how and when of it, I personally relegate to third tier matters--I don't hold a specific opinion and extend charity to my family and friends who run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to very literal, six-day creationists who believe the first six chapters of Genesis are core to understanding the Gospel.
But if Creation matters are very important to you, you might consider giving that book a read.
Thank you for your frankness and faith in God and his word. I am a retired aero engineer who cam to faith age 20 in my 2nd year at university. I am now 77 and spent the last 20 years delving into all of the claimed scientific challenges to the truth of the Bible. I claimed Jer 33:3 very early in my spiritual journey because it was specifically God answering my questions that got me saved. I soon realised the biggest question facing a Biblical worldview was not the age of the earth, which has lots of good science telling us it is no more than about 6000 years old it was the distant stars.
HIgh level secular science relies on the clear evidence of the size of the universe and the speed of light as their final excuse to not believe in God and even challenge the truth of the Bible and the media follows and Christians have no single answer. All the major celebrity apologetics admit they have no single answer to the starlight-time problem. Well that all changed in 2018 when God answered my question about this and I started to publish it in response to celebrity evangelists for the religion of atheism and finally THEY HAD NO ANSWER!
It is terribly important that you understand what I am about to tell you. I have published the answer on both Substack and Medium and I will give you the links. What God revealed came from a simple principle from Rom 1:19 "he has made it plain to them because God has shown it to them". That is the answer lies not in trying to think of a new miracle which is not given in the text but to just look at what has already been revealed and is plainly known to secular science. A quick summary:
(1) Gen 1:1 is uniquely consistent with Einstein's equation of relativity if we read "heavens" as SPACE STRETCHED OUT so TIME, SPACE and MATTER (Earth alone) all came into existence at once. (All big bang models and some creationist models including Humphries have to assume this moment included all the mass of the whole universe which is their downfall and thy all fail because of this mistake)
(2) Karl Schwarzschild was first to solve Einstein's equation in 1917 by putting mass into the equation and it proved the possibility of black holes. The mass of the universe is estimated to be 1e80 = 1 x 10^80 protons. This mass can never have been inside a diameter of 52.5 billion light years or it will collapse into a black hole so we know the big bang and all theories that require the total mass of the universe to be created at the same time are wrong.
(3) God said "and let there be light" energy in the form of waves was injected into space on day one. It gave light on earth making a day but if it was also injected into the expanding space where every star would be it could be converted to mass after the expansion overcoming the black hole problem and at the same time accounting for the orderliness of stars in galaxies etc. (big bang theories cannot account for the order or the creation of stars from pure energy because antimatter = matter = annihilation back to energy)
(4) All we need is an experiment that everyone in science knows how waves can be made into atoms instantaneously by a mind with their histories written back in time. Well strange we should ask because there is one and it is called the "DELAYED QUANTUM ERASER EXPERIMENT" and it scares secular physicists because it implies a mind. Actually all states of order require a mind to direct energy to do work.
So all this is in the Retrospective Age Cosmology contained in the links below and I don't mind if you would share them. Thanks
You've had quite the career and lived through some pretty exciting times on the aeronautical front!
Thank you for sharing the information you've clearly spent a lot of time thinking over. I will pass this and the above links to my family members with science backgrounds who will understand and appreciate this.
Maybe one day after the end of this current world, God will let us all have a peek at what it was like to see Him creating and stretching out those heavens? :)
Such a good reminder that every translation makes interpretive choices. Comparing versions can show us where wording carries more weight than we realized. Hosea’s immediate message is about Israel’s restoration, while the “third day” language also invites Christians to read the passage in light of Christ’s resurrection. We do not need to choose between context and fulfillment—we need to read carefully enough to honor both.
Yes, exactly! 💯
I had memorized both the “three even for four” and the “six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him” and have noticed this pattern with numbers, but had never understood it. Thanks for that brief insight
Great read, thank you.
Always helpful to have more than one English translation/version plus a Greek-English primer or inter-linear Bible.
Plus, it is also a wise practice to read every Biblical book and Epistle with three things in mind: culture, audience and context; the Bible is not a flat text.
(Oh, I would definitely push aside the ESV 🫤)
LastIy, I could spend all day studying my Bibles but it would be useless if all that reading didn't encourage me towards transforming into the likeness of Christ 🌱 That's the idea, isn't it!?
People often ask me what version of the Bible I used in metering and rhyming and generally creating the Psalm Hymns. I often feel the question is a trap, and I don't always answer. Truthfully, I did this. I searched out several versions. Thank you for validating such a practice.
I am not a fan of translations that flatten the original meaning. Even the CBS states that Phoebe is a “servant”. She was a deacon. The Greek and Hebrew are hard to translate. This is my sniff text. Going straight to Romans 16 and seeing what the translation does to Phoebe and Junia. No one has time for any kind of sideways dismissal of women anymore. Even Genesis states that Eve and her weight are in the same neighborhood of how God refers to Himself.
It’s a challenge. Thank God the spirit has filtered out the noise of misogyny for me. Thank you for a thoughtful post!
Several years ago when I was sending out my pastoral resumé to churches, there was one in Colorado that wouldn't even consider me after they found out I won't/don't use multiple versions. If I want to know how words can be rendered in other ways, that's what my concordance and other language helps are for. Besides, comparing various versions many times is comparing apples to oranges because the source materials are different. So they won't translate the same.
I love YouVersion & their devotional options, and am super excited to learn about this Compare feature! Thanks for that! 👍
I'm also curious, as a former Precept/Kay Arthur student, if you have thoughts about the NASB, which I've been assured repeatedly is the most accurate version (if not the most flowing for readability). In this case, it was very similar to the ones you used:
Hosea 6:2 NASB1995
"He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him."
Except I *do* subjectively like the phrasing to "live in His presence" more than "live before Him", just seems more close/intimate imo. I also like the Amplified Version and will probably remember to check it more often after reading this! ☺️
May I suggest a book for you to read? The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers by Abner Chou argues that the Old Testament writers knew well what they were saying. He makes a powerful case showing how Old Testament intertextuality took previous revelation, exegeted it correctly, and then built new revelation on its foundation. That third day raising up may well have been deliberate; having been built on the third day saving of Isaac from being sacrificed.
What are your thoughts on CSB vs ESV? You noted a preference for CSB, so I was curious :) thanks for the insightful reminder!
So can I ask you this; Was the universe created in six days about 6000 years ago?
Have you read Starlight In Time by Russell Humphreys, @Michael Bellamy? A couple of my close family members who have degrees in astrophysics (or other science backgrounds but are hardcore astronomy nerds) recommend this book as one possible model for Christians seeking to reconcile the conflict between data supporting a young earth vs. data supporting an ancient universe.
I have a humanities background and got lost after the first couple of chapters of Starlight In Time, but the thesis mostly made sense. For me, God is the Creator of everything and I affirm Genesis as a true account but the actual how and when of it, I personally relegate to third tier matters--I don't hold a specific opinion and extend charity to my family and friends who run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to very literal, six-day creationists who believe the first six chapters of Genesis are core to understanding the Gospel.
But if Creation matters are very important to you, you might consider giving that book a read.
Thank you for your frankness and faith in God and his word. I am a retired aero engineer who cam to faith age 20 in my 2nd year at university. I am now 77 and spent the last 20 years delving into all of the claimed scientific challenges to the truth of the Bible. I claimed Jer 33:3 very early in my spiritual journey because it was specifically God answering my questions that got me saved. I soon realised the biggest question facing a Biblical worldview was not the age of the earth, which has lots of good science telling us it is no more than about 6000 years old it was the distant stars.
HIgh level secular science relies on the clear evidence of the size of the universe and the speed of light as their final excuse to not believe in God and even challenge the truth of the Bible and the media follows and Christians have no single answer. All the major celebrity apologetics admit they have no single answer to the starlight-time problem. Well that all changed in 2018 when God answered my question about this and I started to publish it in response to celebrity evangelists for the religion of atheism and finally THEY HAD NO ANSWER!
It is terribly important that you understand what I am about to tell you. I have published the answer on both Substack and Medium and I will give you the links. What God revealed came from a simple principle from Rom 1:19 "he has made it plain to them because God has shown it to them". That is the answer lies not in trying to think of a new miracle which is not given in the text but to just look at what has already been revealed and is plainly known to secular science. A quick summary:
(1) Gen 1:1 is uniquely consistent with Einstein's equation of relativity if we read "heavens" as SPACE STRETCHED OUT so TIME, SPACE and MATTER (Earth alone) all came into existence at once. (All big bang models and some creationist models including Humphries have to assume this moment included all the mass of the whole universe which is their downfall and thy all fail because of this mistake)
(2) Karl Schwarzschild was first to solve Einstein's equation in 1917 by putting mass into the equation and it proved the possibility of black holes. The mass of the universe is estimated to be 1e80 = 1 x 10^80 protons. This mass can never have been inside a diameter of 52.5 billion light years or it will collapse into a black hole so we know the big bang and all theories that require the total mass of the universe to be created at the same time are wrong.
(3) God said "and let there be light" energy in the form of waves was injected into space on day one. It gave light on earth making a day but if it was also injected into the expanding space where every star would be it could be converted to mass after the expansion overcoming the black hole problem and at the same time accounting for the orderliness of stars in galaxies etc. (big bang theories cannot account for the order or the creation of stars from pure energy because antimatter = matter = annihilation back to energy)
(4) All we need is an experiment that everyone in science knows how waves can be made into atoms instantaneously by a mind with their histories written back in time. Well strange we should ask because there is one and it is called the "DELAYED QUANTUM ERASER EXPERIMENT" and it scares secular physicists because it implies a mind. Actually all states of order require a mind to direct energy to do work.
So all this is in the Retrospective Age Cosmology contained in the links below and I don't mind if you would share them. Thanks
https://mikebravoyanky.substack.com/p/retrospective-age-model-of-the-universe?r=5l4pf7&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
https://medium.com/@mike.clare.bellamy/the-origin-of-the-universe-f85e7e1f1ea8?sharedUserId=mike.clare.bellamy
You've had quite the career and lived through some pretty exciting times on the aeronautical front!
Thank you for sharing the information you've clearly spent a lot of time thinking over. I will pass this and the above links to my family members with science backgrounds who will understand and appreciate this.
Maybe one day after the end of this current world, God will let us all have a peek at what it was like to see Him creating and stretching out those heavens? :)
Yes I am looking forward to that day..