1 Cor 12:8 cut last sentence of verse, "These different gifts come through the work of the same Spirit in each one who believes in Christ." because it is not in the text at all.
1 Cor 11:29 change wording, "does not consider that he is handling the Lord's body" to what you see. This is to include the optional idea in interpreting this passage that the misuse of the Lord's Supper is offensive both to the elements (as this wording shows) AND to the fellowship (as the passage and even the whole letter is centering on).
1 Cor 11:27 change the wording: "will be guilty of a sin against." The idea of "sinning against" is not in the text or the ULB and tends to distance the offender from the death of Christ. Paul is making the point very strongly when he labels such offenders as guilty of the death of the Lord as much as those crucifying Jesus.
1 Cor 11:19 change wording to reflect Paul's sarcasm or irony in posing the parties within the church as competing with each other. The competition will filter out the αιρεσεις (heresies) -- assumed to be under the guidance of the Spirit. Paul also uses sharp sarcasm in chapter 15 when proving the resurrection.
1 Cor 11:10 change wording to avoid the danger of misinterpretation with gender roles. The phrase "of the man over her" after "authority" is not in the original. A popular interpretation is that the head covering is a sign that she HAS authority to participate in worship and that the covering is the sign of God's authority over her. By dropping this phrase, the option is left to the reader.
Another difficulty here is "angels" that can mean both the spirits and the human messengers. The woman's covering would make her more appropriate and acceptable to visiting messengers from other churches. This might be worth a note , but note a change here in wording.
v. 3: "the one who will destroy everything that God has done"
changed to:
"the one whom God will destroy"
This edit translates the ULB "son of destruction" and follows the UBS Notes and the NIV, interpreting the "son of destruction," who is "the man of lawlessness," with the view that this man will not so much "destroy everything God has done," but instead he himself will be destroyed by God.
1 Cor 10:19-20 change wording for clarity of concept. A quote from Leon Morris: "To eat idol meat might be held to sanction idolatry; not to eat it might imply that the idol was real. Paul starts with vigorous questions that imply that the idol sacrifice and the idol are both shams."
1 Cor 9:15 change wording "money" to "any of these things" because the rights Paul could have claimed go beyond the monetary and other changes for clarity
1 Cor 9:10 cut extra wording at the end, ", just like an an apostle over his church" since this is not at all in the text. Besides, it gives the idea that apostles have churches like pastors, but apostles are sent out, pastors stay.
1 Cor 7:30 change "shed a tear" to what you see because it is an idiom that could be unfamiliar to many. Also, dropped "or in their hearts" after "joy on their faces" because this is added. Also, "they wanted" after "to buy something." These are all additions that qualify the ideas too far.
See in Reader
Hanker10
Henry Whitney
Tom Warren
hharrissWA