Featured Bibles that are deliberately bad?

Yeah,this whole issue is not a matter of Liberals vs. Consrvatives.

I'll give a snip from the NET notes regarding almah:

"The word seems to pertain to age,not sexual experience,and would normally be translated 'young woman.' The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek...rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word (parquenos), which does mean 'virgin' in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23."

In the Net text for Is. 7:14 it renders it "young woman."

In the NASBU,the footnote says:"Or young woman."

In the NIV foonote it says :"Or young woman."

In the NLTse the same kind of footnote :"Or young woman."

 

John,

Looking at your link, smokes alive, 46 different words! Does this many options make translation work more difficult or more precise?

 

Jkdbuck76; picking one

Jkdbuck76

I suggest when you go to purchase a Bible, you give the introduction a good review. Usually the introduction will identify WHO (usually an institution or organization) paid for the translation and publishing work and WHO was on the staff who did the actual translation. Then go with the organization you trust the most. (I would stay away from the Watchtower Society, or the International League of Deophobes, for instance.)

Also, read a few passages and see how easy they are to read and comprehend. You might even check on the size and type of font used. I have a NET Bible and I like it, but the print is small and unless the light is good, it is hard to read.

If no one mentioned this yet, pray for guidance from the Lord. If you cooperate, He won't let you get a 'bad' Bible.

 

Gen. 24:43 is clearly a virgin (correctly in the KJB), since it is the girl chosen to marry Isaac; Ex. 2:8 and Psalm 68:25 and Prov. 20:19 are ambiguous, so can't be used semantically to determine the core meaning. Song of Songs usage is clearly "virgin" since the author is contrasting the bride with non-virgins. So there are two where almah is clearly a virgin, but none where the meaning is clearly a young woman not a virgin, meaning to me that the proven meaning of "virgin" carries the day. (The word is never used of a married woman, by the way, as Richard Niessen points out in an article in BibSac 137#546.) I've never seen extra-Biblical usage where the context distinguished the word simply as a "young woman" as opposed to a virgin. Indeed, Charles Feinberg gave evidence from an extra-biblical for "virgin" from Ugaritic in about 1400 BC (BibSac vol 119#475, pp. 251-258).

Glad to post.

It's only an interpretive use if someone can prove that there was a definite 1st century usage of almah meaning nothing more than "young woman," thus giving Matthew more than one possibility. I've never seen such evidence.

Agreed. This brings up the fact that "sign" was used in both Isaiah and Matthew. As Jordan pointed out, if the meaning is simply a "young woman" then the use of the term "sign" is meaningless in Is. 7:14.

 

Good point! :thumbs:

 

You'll notice that most of those are compounds. There are five words, I think it was, we had to choose from, but one could be eliminated since it meant a male virgin. We eliminated another as being a colloquial loan word from English, but we preferred a more literary term. We finally went with 処女 (shojo) because it is the traditional technical term in Japanese theology used for the virgin birth. But we had quite a discussion until then!

 

Could not the "sign" be a birth then, time of Ahaz and also as applied by Matthew in reference to Jesus? That would be my understanding. It is common for New Testament writers to apply Old Testament passages in ways not expected from the Old Testament text.

 

I realize this interpretation is often put forth by both liberal and conservative commentators. There are two problems with it. (1) Neither Isaiah nor any contemporary writer ever says who this might refer to In Ahaz's time, so it remains purely speculative. I don't see how speculation helps exegesis personally. (2) The "you" is plural, meaning the sign is not just to Ahaz, but the house of David, which fits Matt. 1:23.

 

As an ex-Jehovah Witness who grew up in that cult and only left the organization 6 years ago I can say that the JWs absolutely do NOT regard the KJV as valid scripture. The only valid scripture to them is the NWT. They will frequently refer to the KJV in speaking with non-JWs as a way to validate their point because they know that most people regard the KJV as a reliable Bible and they know most people are at least familiar with that translation. Once they have you studying with them they will adamantly recommend you use the NWT and point out all the errors in the KJV to prove how their Bible is superior. In fact, inside the JW organization the KJV is frequently mocked and it would be VERY unusual and looked down upon (so much so, that this person would have disciplinary action taken against them by the elders of the congregation for reading apostate material) if any JW was reading/studying anything other than the NWT.

 

Oh no...the Lutherans gave me a " good news /NT". Also a Luther's small catechism. Your saying, tthrow them out???

 

A good reason not to use the net bible as well.

 

Rather poor RM reasoning.

 

It's not my favorite;but to condemn it outright would be a mistake on your part. Even though that translation wouldn't rank so highly these days, it has been instrumental in leading some to saving faith and a greater appreciation of the Bible leading the users to move on to better versions.

But think about this. For a good 1,000 years or more most Christians had no access to even a portion of the Word of God. Those that had access might not have had the ability to understand Latin --because most were variations of the Latin Vulgate. Most English portions of Scripture were paraphases. Perhaps Good News For Modern Man would have been a few steps up the ladder. In other words,don't be so provincial. A narrow way of looking at things might cause you to lose perspective.

 

How about them? The NAB is rather good,as is the NJB. There are editions,I believe, without the Apocrypha. Roman Catholic notes are minimal in some editions. Someone can actually understand biblical truths --including the Gospel itself through the reading of these Roman Catholic translations.

 

NJB....??? "New Jersey Bible perhaps? :tonofbricks:

 

Im serious ITL, I have a "Good News" on my desk. Is it that bad that I gotta chuck it?

....and try these Little Debbies Donut Sticks......Wonder what sticks?

 

The OP was: "Is there a Bible you would NOT purchase for your kids"?

If you want to throw it away, be my guest. I threw my wife's copy away years ago. When was the last time you read this translation?

 

Or my "narrow" view has been honed and sharpened over the years and I have strong beliefs that a Bible should not weaken the doctrine of the virgin birth. That is a perspective I do not want to lose.