How do we know a good translation?

If you know of an unbiased group somewhere, I am sure we would like to know about them!

What do you think of the post above with the way the TNIV translated those terms/words? Did you look at the whole page I posted a link to, or at any of the articles? How can you critique what they say if you didn't?

 

As a matter of fact I did read the quote, and have read other stuff from the Council that I find equally obejectional.

 

The point is, it's changing the text. The text does not say "Jewish leaders." Just because you or others think Jewish leaders were shouting does not make it okay to change the text.

Also, saying "Jewish leaders" gives the impression they were the only ones or the main ones shouting, when that is not what the text says.

 

What about these examples? They seem to changing the text as well.

I am not against changing a word into non-specific gender when that is the clear meaning, but when it's not, or if a gender specific word is used, then it should be translated that way.

Women should also not want people to pander to them just because they are feminists (I used to be a strong feminist in the secular sense). That's a very unfeminist attitude if they thought about it.

 

You make a good point. However, we DO allow changes in text elsewhere. For example, most of our Bibles use the word "Lord". The only correct word in today's English is "master". In another example, the KJV uses "Easter", and many KJVO's have fought for its existence. There are numerous other examples. I''m not belittling your point at all, and think it a good one. HOwever, we tend to be rather subjective on what text we like changed and what text we don't.

 

I haven't but it looked good at first glance. Thanks for the link.

 

Below is a web address and site I came across that has one man's observations concerning assessing and evaluating Bible translations. There are some pages of "Questions to ask in assessing a Bible Version" divided into five areas. From the site with the questions, there is a link to a longer article discussing the questions and examples from various translations. The author is a Southern Baptist.
You don't have to agree with all of his conclusions to find his site helpful.

http://faith.prapadeutic.com/questions.html

 

Spelling error in link. Correct is:

http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

 

You make a good point. However, we DO allow changes in text elsewhere. For example, most of our Bibles use the word "Lord". The only correct word in today's English is "master". In another example, the KJV uses "Easter", and many KJVO's have fought for its existence. There are numerous other examples. I''m not belittling your point at all, and think it a good one. HOwever, we tend to be rather subjective on what text we like changed and what text we don't. </font>[/QUOTE]Depends on who you mean by "we" I guess.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is not KJVO.

I think the reason "Lord" is used and not 'Master' is because "master" has meanings that may not be correct in today's language and isn't as clear. Same thing with the word "servant" or "slave" which in the OT was usually an indentured servant, but is not normally translated that way because most people don't know what it means. I agree with you on "Easter."

A lot of words just don't translate exactly into English because of culture and it becomes a matter of preference and hard decision. But this does not excuse putting something in the text that is not there (like "Jewish leaders") which is not really an issue of translation, but is an issue of addition to the text.

 

So, 'sister' does not belong in this verse as the word is not ambiguous. Nor is 'sister' implied, because the word in question is very specific. So, either I'm not to rebuke or forgive a 'sister', or, my 'sister' is incapable of sinning.

Strong's shows: adelphos {ad-el-fos'}
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Thayer's Lexicon presents it the same, with more discussion.

As long as we are being literal, who is my brother? My genetic linked or legally adopted brother? My Christian brother? Or all men, as in 'all men are brothers'? All fit the word shown in Luke 17:3.

Please understand, I am posting this to demonstrate the difficulty, if not danger, of trying to adhere too tightly to a 'literal' translation. After all,

How many of us have ignored this command?

I like the comment that all translations have problems. They do. We need to keep sight of God's power and the work of the Holy Spirit in all this. This is not something that we human followers of Jesus have to 'fix'. By the same token, we need to keep track of 'accurate' translations and 'inaccurate' in the sense of the meaning and message of God to humanity.

Just out of curiousity, any other So Bap preachers here? How many of you preach out of anything but a KJV Bible? I've been to So Bap churches all over the country, and I'm the only preacher I've found who does not use a KJV.

OH... how do we know a good translation from a bad one? Does the translation show God as God? Does it proclaim Jesus Christ as God? Does it draw men and women to a saving relationship with God through Jesus? Does it edify the body of Christ? 'Yes' answers are a good indicator of the value of the translation, I'd say.
-----------------------------------
Ineluctably,
Archie

 

Why don't we translate the word as "Slavemaster" instead of "Lord"? That makes more sense to American ears.

 

In general, the older prominent ones use the KJV, e.g., Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers, etc., but the newer graduates from seminary rarely use it, in my experience.

Yours,

Bluefalcon