Huh? Where have you been? I know many,many missionaries sent right here to the good ol' USA.
Who or What Is Responsible...
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by TCGreek, Aug 24, 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
-
So if I read right it all comes down to money and new scholarship, which involves reflecting modern language.
-
JoJ , what's a "back translation" ?
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Overall, the evangelical missions force has been decreasing for years. Yet the number of new translations has been increasing exponentially. To me this says misplaced priorities in general. (So my post was not intended to produce guilt--just knowledge and challenge.) Should we major on the Great Commission, stated five times in Scripture, or on producing new translations and other products for America?
I have one very expensive, so-so quality Bible program for my Japanese PC. I can get many different ones in English. Why isn't some of that money being used to reach the world for Christ?
In an old missions illustration, what would you do if you saw a log being carried by eleven men, ten on one side and one on the other? Who would you help? :type: -
I'd join the side of the ten . No use being the odd-man out .
-
-
Have you seen it? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
With all of our faults, where would many nations in this world be without American missionaries. And where would those missionaries obedient to the Great Commission be without those faithful ones at home supporting them and supplying them with 21st century Scripture tools?
Keep up the good work and God bless you.
Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.HankD
-
However, I think that you have, by not expounding on Ps. 68:11, actually allowed today's language to be read back into the Hebrew, here, contributing to eisegesis. I'm pretty sure that "published" in the sense of 2500-3000 years ago, did not refer to either what John of Japan is doing in translating Scripture into another language, or what any entity is doing today, in 'printing' any and all translations into 'book' form.
Ed -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
"I feel I was denied critical need-to-know information."--Bert. What missionary can't identify with that??!!
-
Acts 13
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
HankD -
Besides "new scholarship" there is 'other scholarship', that is, the likes of Lamsa and his Peshitta-based translation. Most 'Catholic' versions (including Wycliffe's) are based upon the Vulgate text. There are Septuagint-based versions also.
Many of the versions have been the product of sectarian interpretations. Some are notorious for their illegitimate renderings to support various dogmas. These versions reflect denominational, racist, or socio-political influence. There are several 'sacred names' translations (cults), The Word for Us (feminist) and the Anointed Standard Translation (white supremacist) are even less well recognized examples than the Christian Community Bible (ecumenical) and the Authentic New Testament (Jewish); I will not mention the cliche representatives.
A few versions have been made to address the legitimate needs of some reader groups. Bibles with restricted vocabulary (known as 'basic' or 'easy' reading) have been produced to assist readers with special needs (children, deaf, and English-as-second-language are examples). Bible in Basic English, Easy English Bible, NCV (which is basically the same as English Version for Deaf, New Easy-to-Read Version, and the International Children's Bible.)
There have been some versions offered from a literary approach. Some versions are crafted for smoother private reading, or public (aloud) reading. There is a difference between American English and British or Scottish English. These are often abridged and paraphrasical which limits their usefulness. The Bible Designed to be Read as Literature, Book of God as a Novel, The Dartmouth Bible, and Reader’s Digest Bible are some examples. The worst of these become inappropriately casual and ridiculous: Cotton Patch Version (southern rural), Cockney Bible, and The Word on the Street (slang).
Several versions are an attempt at more literal or exacting translation from the original languages. These versions emphasize verb tenses, word order, or expand upon key words (its impossible to emphasize everything within a single version). I would include the Young's Literal, AMP, Concordant Literal NT, ALT, The Emphasized Bible (Rotherham), An Understandable Version, Weust and others in this category. Some that specifically translate from the TR would be the Last Days Bible, The People's NT, KJV2, and NT in Original Order. These are not like the ASV updated to the NASB, the RSV to the ESV, or the NEB becoming the REB.
Some versions were intended to modernize the text of an existing translation (Webster's, or The 21st Century KJV) but I think there are fewer of those than the ones initiated due to one of the above reasons. The HCSB seems to be a unique case since it is not based upon a peculiar text (although conceived as a Majority Text project), nor is it an update an already published version, nor does it demonstrate strong doctrinal slant, nor address a particular reader challenge, nor really expand upon the underlying text; money seems to have been the prime motivator. And so to answer the OP: there are many people (groups) with different interests and goals that responsible for the proliferation of Bible versions; one translation would suffice if we were all identical. -
2. Money, scholarship would all have to fit that statement. -
Page 2 of 2