A "Common" Bible

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Askjo, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TBS reported that a provisional committee of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bible Scholars had begun a joint study of basic translation requirements needed for a common Bible for all Christians. This report refers to that is how they produced their modern versions.

    The TBS quoted, "the Spainish Evangelical Church announced that Roman Catholics and Protestants in Spain and Latin America are engaged on a common version of the Bible."

    The TBS quoted, "During the past year progress has been made on the French ecumenical version on which Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars have been co-operating."

    The Bible warns, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3 (KJV)
     
  2. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every so often the Dutch are ahead of everybody else...
    "Please pray for the final stages of our interconfessional Bible translation, which is due to appear in December 2004. Pray also for the marketing of this translation and its reception by churches and the general public."
    Taken from the following website.
    http://www.biblesociety.co.za/archive_pray89.htm

    It's going to be a Jewish, Roman-Catholic, Protestant translation.
    If it's good my church might even adopt it as it's regular translation in the future.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    That scares me . . I am enough of a separatist to really question the honesty of a translation by such a melding of denominational views.

    But how does that differ so greatly from Erasmus (a devout Catholic) who provided the eclectic blend of 6-7 Greek texts for the AV translators and the Anglican priest who did the English translation working on the AV1611?
     
  4. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I am enough of a separatist to really question the honesty of a translation by such a melding of denominational views."
    Ideally you get a translation not marred by translators working for a specific denomination scoring points for their own ideology.


    Well, I can hope. :D
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Mioque - wishful thinking to say we can translate in a vacuum. Theology DOES affect (and infect) translation.

    Look at the "rules" given to the translators of the AV1611 - they could not translate "ecclesia" as local assembly; they had to use intentionally ambiguous word "church". Same with "baptizo" which means dip or plunge; they had to use "baptize".

    Other Anglican words also had to be used, so it was not a "pure" translation.

    A poor paraphrase - TEV (Good News for Modern Man) was done by two men who openly denied the blood of Christ. They CHANGED the word "blood" on many occasions in their version. It reflected their beliefs.

    So will a "common" bible, methinks.
     
  6. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Same with "baptizo" which means dip or plunge; they had to use "baptize". "
    It's great to speak Dutch when you're a baptist because in that language both to baptize and to dip are the same word: dopen.
    You 'doopt' a baby and you 'doopt' a chip in the dipsauce.
    Dutch rules [​IMG]

    "Theology DOES affect (and infect) translation."
    "It reflected their beliefs.
    So will a "common" bible, methinks. "
    3 factions with different theologies have to work together on this new translation, I hope it will be hard for any of them to sneak in their own favorite bits of bias.
    We will know soon.
    I will be reading the new translation with great interest if it comes out next year.
     
  7. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob said:

    That scares me . . I am enough of a separatist to really question the honesty of a translation by such a melding of denominational views.

    S&T:

    This is totally unnecessary. We already have the message bible that appeals to the above named groups PLUS the wiccans, new age, mystics, etc. Religion in a blender. Paving the way as it is written.
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you going to embrace the Catholic translators along with the translations that both Baptist and Catholic translators collaborate on?
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Talk about a double standard! You want us to ditch perfectly good evangelical translations such as the NIV, NKJV, or NASB for one 400-year-old version done by high-church Anglicans, with no Baptist influence whatever. So what's your problem?
     
  10. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Are you going to embrace the Catholic translators along with the translations that both Baptist and Catholic translators collaborate on?"
    Well let's face it, no baptists worked on the KJV.
    And no baptist ever worked on any widely used Dutch translation.
    I for one am not more or less likely to start hugging translators just because they are Jewish instead of Catholic.
     
  11. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    A Catholic named Erasmus wrote the Greek text underlying the KJV.

    I've heard that there were a couple that compromised with the Anglican church who got to work on it.

    A baptist was burned at the stake in 1611. He was accused of so many heresies that he must have been the most mixed up multi-personalitied person ever. Especially since some of the heresies contradicted each other. :D [​IMG]
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Catholic named Erasmus wrote the Greek text underlying the KJV.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Correct! Erasmus did not function the R/C, however he only used the pen. That's how Erasmus wrote the Greek text underlying the KJV.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,129
    Likes Received:
    320
    It is more accurate to say that he "compiled" the Greek text underlying the KJV. To say that he wrote the Greek text sounds like was the human author.

    HankD
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Of course, Erasmus DID write some. Limited to 6-7 manuscripts, NONE of which were complete, he did some creative writing that has slid down into our AV(whichever revision).
     
  15. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be afraid such a translation would have no "meat" left in it...only the "milk" would remain...
     
  16. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say let the translation appear and be judged on its merits.
     
  17. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct! Erasmus did not function the R/C, however he only used the pen. That's how Erasmus wrote the Greek text underlying the KJV. [/QB][/QUOTE]

    that's touching, to see how KJBOs defend unrepentant RCC priests involved in Bible transmission. mere "pens," we're told.

    but if it's RCC or EO priests copying the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, woo hoo, out sprout the horns n forked tails, n cries of corruption n garbage-can MSS arise.

    nice try! :D
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Erasmus was aware of the Vaticanus manuscript and rejected it. He ordered his friend to send it back to Rome.
     
  19. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite. Erasmus never laid eyes on Vaticanus. He published the first edition of his Greek NT in 1516. Years later, in 1533, a correspondent named Sepulveda sent him a list of 365 selected readings from Vaticanus. Erasmus rejected the readings provided in this correspondence.
     

Share This Page

Loading...