Bible Translations

[Rufus_1611]

Besides different ways of wording things what is the difference in all the different translations out their? What makes a 'good' one? The way I see it is that it is all the same book with the same verses and the same meaning and message.

They are different books with different verses with different meanings and messages.

For one example among many:

2 Samuel 21:19

Some bibles contain a message in 2 Samuel 21:19 that Elhanan killed Goliath...

NASB
"There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."


Other bibles contain a message that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath...

NLT
"In still another battle at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair from Bethlehem killed the brother of Goliath of Gath. The handle of his spear was as thick as a weaver's beam!"

Now, what one can easily say is that one of the bibles is accurate and the rest are inaccurate. What one can not say is that all the bibles are the same and they all say the same things, for they clearly do not.

[keck553]

I think we all can agree God's Word is perfect in it's original format. Bibles are imperfect translations at best.

Blatently wrong and culturally colored at worst.

This is NASB's attempt to translate 2 cor 5:21:

2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This is literal:

2Co 5:21 For He made the One who knew no sin sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This is CJB's attempt:

2Co 5:21 God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God's righteousness."

CJB has mistranslated this so bad, that the verse doesn't even point to the correct concept in Leviticus, that of the scape goat. Sin offerings were made daily to pay sin debt. But the Yom Kippur scape goat carried away sins into the wilderness. This is the likeness Paul is alluding to - that Y'shua (Jesus) carried our sins as far as east is from west, in fulfillment of this feast. There are two concepts here, the sin offering (the price paid) and the carrying away of our sins. Jesus did both for us. CJB, which is written by a Messianic Jew, completely ignores a concept that should be well understood by, of all people, a Jew.

I think we all know various translations need to be carefully studied out and compared to the source language, the content and the context, with lots and lots of prayer, sometimes even fasting.

[Emanate]

CJB, which is written by a Messianic Jew, completely ignores a concept that should be well understood by, of all people, a Jew.

David Stern certainly had a theological axe to grind with his translation. I find that I simply cannot read his version anymore. Many of his interpretational translations are a reach and detract from the message of Messiah.

Keep in mind that his translation of the old testament is from the JPS (reform jewish publication society) translation with only the names changed to appear "more Jewish."

I could turn this into a treatise on my views of "Messianic Judaism" but I will let it rest (for now).

[keck553]

David Stern certainly had a theological axe to grind with his translation. I find that I simply cannot read his version anymore. Many of his interpretational translations are a reach and detract from the message of Messiah.

Keep in mind that his translation of the old testament is from the JPS (reform jewish publication society) translation with only the names changed to appear "more Jewish."

I could turn this into a treatise on my views of "Messianic Judaism" but I will let it rest (for now).

Yeah, I know, I have a JPS TeNaKh......

It's an ongoing struggle for me. I love God, and I love to observe His Moedim the best I know how considering Messiah, and I also love some Jewish traditions (and I suppose a few Christian ones). The trouble I have with most Messianics here is their nose is more in the Talmud than the Bible, and thier wives suffer the consequences. The trouble I have with most Christians here is their nose is more in the world than the Bible and they all suffer the consequences.

Although I am deeply convicted about what's K'desh and what's chav, there seems to be no concern among many believers for separating the things of God from the things of man.

I'm OK with traditions; but it's when traditions are called Holy, or my faith is judged by others using the standard of either replacement theology or Jewish traditions that they raise up these red flags.

I seem to be caught between the perverbial 'rock and hard spot.' But at least I have the comfort and solid foundation of The Rock. sigh....

[TrustingFollower]

You've just falsely accused me brother (or sister). I reject any sacred name movement dogma.

I did assume when I made the statement above. I apologize for accusing you and ask your forgiveness.

[keck553]

I did assume when I made the statement above. I apologize for accusing you and ask your forgiveness.

I'm just thankful to have that cleared up.

May God bless you and keep you in His arms always.

[TrustGzus]

I'll give you an example:

Col 2:17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. - NASB

Col 2:17 which are a shadow of coming things, but the body of Christ. - Literal translation from the Greek

If you are a studier of Socrates and Plato, you will recognize the Platoism in the added word in the NASB. People who lean on Plato philosophy tend to use it in thier interpretations of Scripture. In this verse, the translator is mis-applying the cave-analogy (a theory on reality) expressed in Plato's Republic as opposed to it's real meaning which alludes to Messiah as the shadow-caster.

This type of interpretation strips away the deeper, messianic truths that permeate the TeNaKh from the first character of Genesis 1:1.

When we discover the real meaning of such terms, we better understand the deeper purpose and mission of Jesus, and God's entire plan of redemption, we get a deeper fellowship, plus we get a clearer picture of when Messiah returns. Think about a marriage, and the effects of knowing just the surface of your spouse as opposed to your spouse's deepest dreams, desires, goal and heart.

This seems like a stretch to me. The translators of the NASB were not dualists. Also, I listen to many expositors who use the NASB none of them accept Plato's dualism nor do they exposit this text that way.

I think it helps to read the entire context. As I read the whole chapter or even book (but one could read 2:13-23 for a good context) I don't see a problem with the NASB in its rendition of verse 17 within that entire context.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

[TrustGzus]

I think it would be helpful for many Christians to realize that they have a unique view of how to translate the Bible as compared to other languages. We don't always translate Spanish and English literally into one another. When translators translate from English to Spanish or vice versa, the question is "how is that said in the other language?" A phrase as simple as "what's your name?" is not translated literally between Spanish and English.

This principle is applicable to Bible translating. Translators must be able to read entire books of the Bible and understand the message and then translate that into the receptor language. Merely going word by word and putting it into an identical English word isn't translating. We wouldn't need translators then. There wouldn't be translations, just interlinears. All we would need is a computer. But try experimenting with Google's translator and see how well that works. Take a few English sentences and type them in. Then translate them into a language of your choice. Then have Google translate that back into English. It's really quite funny.

[The Preacher]

Besides different ways of wording things what is the difference in all the different translations out their? What makes a 'good' one? The way I see it is that it is all the same book with the same verses and the same meaning and message.

That's a good perspective. I think the answer is which ever one is easiest for you to understand. I use the King James because I got tricked by Jack Chick and his group twenty five years ago. After memorizing large portions of the bible in that translation I am reluctant to abandon it. However, I do use my archaeological study bible quite often and it is the NIV translation . I like the new living translation but there are places where it departs from the Hebrew and Greek with great liberty. I think that they are all good to teach the foundational doctrines of Christianity.

[Oregongrown]

A simple article in grammar can alter an entire meaning of a Scripture verse.

I agree. The one thing though that I was told, which helped me a lot, was that through the years, there have been the copyright issues so, that has led to bibles being written that "have" to be a little different in wording. What is your opinion on that?

ysic, denise

[Oregongrown]

That's a good perspective. I think the answer is which ever one is easiest for you to understand. I use the King James because I got tricked by Jack Chick and his group twenty five years ago. After memorizing large portions of the bible in that translation I am reluctant to abandon it. However, I do use my archaeological study bible quite often and it is the NIV translation . I like the new living translation but there are places where it departs from the Hebrew and Greek with great liberty. I think that they are all good to teach the foundational doctrines of Christianity.

I like your perspective. Another thing I have had on my mind is this. A tiny church wants to send bibles to a 3rd world country that is in great need. All the church can come up with is many different translations(2nd hand bibles)and is also donated several, of say the NIV. I cannot believe that God is not going to speak His One True Word through those bibles. I just don't get it when someone is so dead set on one and only one translation like the KJV. I like that bible and understand it is closest to the original scripts. I still believe God can and will speak His Word through any translation that keeps the basic Truth of God's Word. I think if we honestly compare we can come up with several good translations. I am comfortable with NKJV, KJV, NIV and NLT. I have some problem with the Amplified because one adjective is enough for me.

God bless all, ysic, denise