Christian: Problems With Modern Bible Translations (moral, Kingdom, virgin, grace)

[No*s]

Originally Posted by may

And i thought this thread was about bible translations

It is, and there won't be any more discussion of the JWs as a group on this thread unless it is directly relevant to the NWT, just translations.

EDIT:

To clarify things a bit, a criticism of the Watchtower would only be permissable if it directly affected the discussion of translations. Local experiences, no matter how good or bad, are off-topic and quite outside the bouds of the thread.

[No*s]

For my personal tastes, I find the NRSV too PC.

The NIV takes too many liberties for my taste. One of the worst is the translation of sarx as "sinful nature." How can a nature be sinful? That translation of sarx misses many important connectsions with other passages and adds an anti-material spin that isn't present in the original.

The NKJV I like, but it's got some textual problems (such as the inclusion of the Johannine Comma), and doesn't include the Deuterocanonicals.

I don't like the NWT at all. The insertion of the term "Jehovah" into the NT is unfounded, and there are those red-letter verses that are mistranslated. It strikes me as deliberately mistranslated in places (such as the insertion of "other" in Col. 1.16) .

That's some problems with the modern translations that I do see . Of course, older English translations have some problems as well (better texts are available, better understanding of Greek, etc.).

[Linus7]

Originally Posted by No*s

For my personal tastes, I find the NRSV too PC.

The NIV takes too many liberties for my taste. One of the worst is the translation of sarx as "sinful nature." How can a nature be sinful? That translation of sarx misses many important connectsions with other passages and adds an anti-material spin that isn't present in the original.

The NKJV I like, but it's got some textual problems (such as the inclusion of the Johannine Comma), and doesn't include the Deuterocanonicals.

I don't like the NWT at all. The insertion of the term "Jehovah" into the NT is unfounded, and there are those red-letter verses that are mistranslated. It strikes me as deliberately mistranslated in places (such as the insertion of "other" in Col. 1.16) .

That's some problems with the modern translations that I do see . Of course, older English translations have some problems as well (better texts are available, better understanding of Greek, etc.).

Please elaborate on that "Johannine comma." I've never heard of that.

I like the NKJV, too, but, like you, I wish it included the Deuterocanonical Books.

I used to have a little pamphlet that extolled the virtues of the Douay Rheims over other translations. It was pretty convincing. I loaned it to a Byzantine Catholic buddy of mine, and he still has it. Anyway, the gist of it was that St. Jerome had access to manuscripts that are no longer available so that his Latin Vulgate Bible (upon which the Douay Rheims is based) is extremely reliable.

That is a good argument for the Septuagint, as well, IMHO. The Jewish translators of the LXX had access to manuscripts that later scholars - notably, the Masoretes - did not have.

Have you seen The Millenium Bible? I heard it is a slightly updated KJV with the Deuterocanonicals. I saw one in the bookstore at Holy Virgin Cathedral (where the body of St. John Maximovitch rests) in San Francisco. I think I might buy a copy when I get the chance.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Linus7

Please elaborate on that "Johannine comma." I've never heard of that.

Look up I John 5.7 in your KJV. That verse, while nice, is almost certainly an addition, probably from marginal notes. It doesn't appear in the vast majority of manuscripts and appears in only a few late manuscripts (13th century, I believe). It is not a part of the Byzantine text-type (as much as I dislike the B-word, it's the only common term for the textline), nor is it a part of the early textual witnesses we have.

Originally Posted by Linus7

I like the NKJV, too, but, like you, I wish it included the Deuterocanonical Books.

I used to have a little pamphlet that extolled the virtues of the Douay Rheims over other translations. It was pretty convincing. I loaned it to a Byzantine Catholic buddy of mine, and he still has it. Anyway, the gist of it was that St. Jerome had access to manuscripts that are no longer available so that his Latin Vulgate Bible (upon which the Douay Rheims is based) is extremely reliable.

That is a good argument for the Septuagint, as well, IMHO. The Jewish translators of the LXX had access to manuscripts that later scholars - notably, the Masoretes - did not have.

There are real problems with that argument for the Douy-Rheims. First, we have Greek manuscripts as old as the Vulgate, and even older. That, in many ways, mitigates the advantages for the DR . It also is subject to copying, but where it agrees with an ancient witness, it can be potent.

The same problems apply to the LXX, and the LXX has been vindicated a good deal by the DSS .

Originally Posted by Linus7

Have you seen The Millenium Bible? I heard it is a slightly updated KJV with the Deuterocanonicals. I saw one in the bookstore at Holy Virgin Cathedral (where the body of St. John Maximovitch rests) in San Francisco. I think I might buy a copy when I get the chance.

I almost mentioned it. I like it, because I like the KJV, and I like updates. I like the KJV, simply because as a Protestant, that was the "traditional" Bible and I tend to be attracted to old stuff . I like it, often, in spite of its errors (even those that it started a tradition on), so I liked the TMB lol.

[Linus7]

Ah, yes, I had heard of that info regarding 1 John 5:7. I just never heard of it referred to as the Johannine Comma.

I don't get into the "higher criticism" of the Bible, in part because I don't know enough about the biblical languages and the manuscripts.

I know the official OT of the Orthodox Church is the LXX.

What is the official NT of the Church (I realize it, too, will be in Greek), and does it include 1 John 5:7?

If so, the authority of the Church is good enough reason for me to accept it.

[No*s]

I can understand that. The Johannine Comma is the "technical" name for I Jn. 5.7 . Sorry about that. I've read scholarship, and it has its pros and cons like everything, but it can be very enlightening. There's scholarship on a lower level for people like you and I, then there's scholarship that quotes in six languages for a book. Now that's over my head .

As for what the Bible of the Church is...I don't think it's that cut and dried. Almost all our Greek manuscripts of the NT come from the Church, and the bulk of them don't include it. I don't think there is an official text-type of the NT in the Orthodox Church. Until there is, that leaves us afield to look at the versions, though if there is one, I suspect it would be the Byzantine text-type.

On the OT, I enjoy my OT (I have Rhalf's LXX...which suits all my needs, has a very beuatiful type-facing, and includes variants enough to satisfy me).

[may]

In recent years a number of modern Bible translations have been published that have done much to help lovers of God’s Word to get to the sense of the original writings quickly. However, many translations have eliminated the use of the divine name from the sacred record. On the other hand, the New World Translation dignifies and honors the worthy name of the Most High God by restoring it to its rightful place in the text. The name now appears in 6,973 places in the Hebrew Scripture section, as well as in 237 places in the Greek Scripture section, a total of 7,210 places all together. The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name יהוה. Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: "Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree, ‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.-----Introdution to the old testament, Robert H..Pfeiffer 1952 page 94

The New World Translation is not the first version to restore the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. From at least the 14th century onward, many translators have felt forced to restore God’s name to the text, particularly in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote from Hebrew Scripture texts that contain the divine name. Many modern-language missionary versions, including African, Asian, American, and Pacific-island versions of the Greek Scriptures, use the name Jehovah liberally, as do some European-language versions. Wherever the divine name is rendered, there is no longer any doubt as to which "lord" is indicated. It is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jehovah, whose name is sanctified

[No*s]

Originally Posted by may

In recent years a number of modern Bible translations have been published that have done much to help lovers of God’s Word to get to the sense of the original writings quickly. However, many translations have eliminated the use of the divine name from the sacred record. On the other hand, the New World Translation dignifies and honors the worthy name of the Most High God by restoring it to its rightful place in the text. The name now appears in 6,973 places in the Hebrew Scripture section, as well as in 237 places in the Greek Scripture section, a total of 7,210 places all together. The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name יהוה. Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed: "Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree, ‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.-----Introdution to the old testament, Robert H..Pfeiffer 1952 page 94

The New World Translation is not the first version to restore the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. From at least the 14th century onward, many translators have felt forced to restore God’s name to the text, particularly in places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote from Hebrew Scripture texts that contain the divine name. Many modern-language missionary versions, including African, Asian, American, and Pacific-island versions of the Greek Scriptures, use the name Jehovah liberally, as do some European-language versions. Wherever the divine name is rendered, there is no longer any doubt as to which "lord" is indicated. It is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jehovah, whose name is sanctified

But May...the Tetragrammaton hasn't been left out of the translations. Saying that is something of a scarecrow. They denote it with "LORD," but use "Lord" in the generic sense for other words. Putting it like that has always been done out of dignity for the term. That's rather insulting to the translators, and the long-time Jewish practice, to indicate that they omit the name, when they use "LORD," "G-d," or "HaShem" to indicate it on the grounds that they do revere it.

Such an assertion is insulting to anyone who holds to that practice.

[No*s]

This is turning into a debate. I have moved it to Same Faith Debates on account of that

[anders]

When news started to leak about the new Swedish confessionally neutral, government sponsored translation (the third since 1541), finally published as "Bibel 2000", I was outraged. In Gen 1, they wrote "And a wind of (a) god swept over the water." (My translation from Swedish, of course.) Sacrilege, I thought. Where's the "Spirit of God", like in KJV?

At that time, I had tried neither Bible Hebrew nor Religious studies at the university, but was just a full-time translator of technical texts.

Now, I realize that B2000 didn't go far enough in giving a correct rendering of the Hebrew. It should IMO be something like "God, what a wind that was blowing!"

And of course the B2000 adheres to the European continental, linguistically correct tradition, in using "Jahve" for יהוה. I find no excuse for adding the vowels of adonai '(my) lord' to the consonants יהוה.