1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Poor translations?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Refreshed, Jan 27, 2003.

  1. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    916
    Ratings:
    +6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey all,

    I've been doing some recent study on the bible versions issue, and have dug up something I want to ask about.

    When the Revised Version was produced (New Testament in 1881 and entire Bible in 1885),

    Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity , by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Pg 45.

    They were referring to John Burgon's book, The Revision Revised , London 1883.

    1. First of all, would the RV be considered a "bad" translation, referring to doctrinal difficulties and/or questionable scholarship?

    2. What versions would be considered "bad" translations and not fit for a Christian to use everyday?

    3. Why?

    I'll start with one:

    New World Translation - John 1:1. Jesus was not "a god," among other doctrinal abnormalities that appeal only to the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Your turn.

    Jason :D
     
  2. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,331
    Ratings:
    +449
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey, you got the easy one. Notice how hard it is to find the NWT online?
     
  3. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    916
    Ratings:
    +6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I haven't tried, but I have one on my bookshelves somewhere.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,534
    Ratings:
    +125
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Know that the RSV was one that translated "almah" as "young woman" instead of "virgin".

    It is not, imho, a really good translation. But our own Dr. Cassidy was saved reading it! What a testimony of the Living Word of God, even in some of the poorer English translations! :D
     
  5. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Ratings:
    +16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    almah means young women doesn't it The word for virgin in Hebrew is bethulah. BTW we are speaking about Ish. 7:14, well at least I am
     
  6. JesusIsLord

    JesusIsLord New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    21
    Ratings:
    +0
    almah means young women doesn't it The word for virgin in Hebrew is bethulah. BTW we are speaking about Ish. 7:14, well at least I am</font>[/QUOTE]The first meaning of almah is "virgin" but it can mean "maid" or "young woman". BUT Isaiah 7:14 is quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Holy Scripture uses the word parthenos there which means virgin only!!!

    So this is a testimony of bad scholarship and bad belief!
    Bad scholarship because if you want to find the true meaning of almah you have to check out the whole book to see how it is used.
    Bad belief because Jesus was born by a virgin so the meaning of almah should be clear! :cool:

    Alex
     
  7. Ben W

    Ben W Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,883
    Ratings:
    +9
    People will look at a particular bible, thinking it is a poor translation. The Living Bible is a good example. Yet some (not all) of these are actually Paraphrased versions.

    The NWT is one written to suit themselves. However they cannot tell you that the KJV is wrong, because that is the one that many of the 144 000 chosen for heaven used, and they were "pure and blameless" Now surely scince bot say the same verse in a number of different places completley differently, they cant both be right :D .
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is not true. The LXX uses parthenos in Gen 34 to refer to Dinah, who is not a virgin. It is by the time of the NT that parthenos means virgin, but even in Matt 1, Matthew uses very clear explanation to make sure "virgin" is understood. There is no doubt that virgin is what Isaiah intended. However, that is not inherent in the word "almah." It can mean young woman or maiden (Prov 30:19; Isa 54:4).

    In Isaiah 7:14, "young woman" misses the point of the context, the sign, and the NT teaching. It is a bad translation at that point.
     
  9. JesusIsLord

    JesusIsLord New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    21
    Ratings:
    +0
    So you want me to say something about the LXX? ;)

    [ January 28, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: JesusIsLord ]
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    What is there to say? The evidence is that parthenos does not mean "virgin" exclusively; it can mean other things ... That's all.
     
  11. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    916
    Ratings:
    +6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So are there any versions/paraphrases you would not recommend for everyday use by a Baptist?

    Jason :D
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sure ... the Living Bible, TNIV, NLT, RSV, NWT, several others. I basically recommend these: NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, and KJV.
     
  13. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    916
    Ratings:
    +6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Focusing on the TNIV and NLT. Is it because they are gender-neutral? I have actually heard of many Christians that use the NLT, but admittedly, I don't know much about it.

    So, here's our list so far:

    1. NWT.
    2. RSV.
    3. TNIV.
    4. Paraphrases marketed like bibles (Living Bible, etc.)

    I want to throw another one out there for discussion, the CEV. I have read portions of this version, and although I could not list specifics, it seemed to me they tried to change doctrine in a couple of places (maybe tried is too strong a word). Does anyone have any information on this version?

    Does anybody disagree with the four listed so far as being bad translations/unfortunate paraphrases?
     
Loading...