PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Bible Translations



poochie
Aug 10th 2008, 10:38 AM
This is an Evangelical web board so this topic may not be as heated as it would be in a Fundamentalist web board. But out of curiosity what is everyones preferred choice?

I grew up with the NIV and srtill prefer it for my general reading/study. However I have noticed the ESV in recent days and have found it to be a little more literal than the NIV. The KJV is a better evangelism/memorization bible and I use this as well.

I stay away form liberal translations like the TNIV, the Message,etc..

Rullion Green
Aug 10th 2008, 10:57 AM
I use KJV as a base but also use NIV as they have very useful footnotes, i also use the complete Jewish bible for a little Hebrew flavour of the NT as it's total misssing in the majority of translations, it has the Hebrew names and terms (Yeshua - Jesus, Y'hudah - Jude, Kefa - Peter) and so on wich is a good thing in my opinion, but can get confusing to someone who is not used to using them.

I was looking into Deut 32:8 with reference to the divine council and found that the Masoretic text that most bible use have a diff translation to the septuagent and dead sea scrolls this has sort of made my mind up to learn Hebrew and try to read the scriptures in the Original language.

I think it best for someone to have a range of reliable Bibles to compare when descrepencies arise. I totaly agree that para phrase bible's such as "The Message" should not be included for serious study.

Thaddaeus
Aug 10th 2008, 11:39 AM
The King James Bible is the one for me!

check the two verses out in the NIV

Isaiah 14:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=14&verse=12&version=31&context=verse)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Revelation 22:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=22&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Jesus was cast down and fell from heaven I think not, here is who the KJB says that fell from heaven.

Isa 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!


I will stick with the one that was the English Bible for about four Hundred years before man said we need a easier translation to understand, when God said, if you seek wisdom ask God, so we followed man, instead of God, and thus creating even more confusion in the Body of Christ, not only do we have to try and figure out which Church but now which Bible. Satan twisted God's Word in the Garden of Eden, again Satan tried to twist God's Word in the wilderness while tempting Jesus, and again Satan has twisted God's word with all the modern Bibles (he is pretty good at what he does). For those that think the NASB (new American Standard) is the better translation check out John 4:29

29"Come, see a man (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john4:29;&version=49;#cen-NASB-26186A))who told me all the things that I have done; (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john4:29;&version=49;#cen-NASB-26186B))this is not the Christ, is it?"


the woman at the well implies that Jesus was not the Christ.

then take John 3:16 where most modern translations take the word begotten out and reads the one and only Son, funny thing is I read that through Jesus Christ I to can be and am a son of God, so does the Word of God lie? am I a son also or is John 3:16 true in the Niv does God have only a one and only Son? to much confusion. check out Luke 3:38 (NIV) the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
then in John 3:16 in the same translation

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16;&version=31;#fen-NIV-26127a)] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

so according to the Niv Adam was the son of God so it must have been Adam that died for us. boy I glad the modern Bible cleared that up for me. I always thought that Jesus The Christ was the one that died for me.

Let me sum this up ever heard the old saying if it ain't broke then don't fix it. The KJB wasn't broke, so why did we try to fix it.

Re 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

it doesn't say that we can't add or take away words, but rather not to add to or take away what the Word says: it was Jesus that died for our sins not Adam, it was Satan that fell from heaven not Jesus and Jesus was the Christ,

Rullion Green
Aug 10th 2008, 11:52 AM
I dont think it's broke, but it's not wothout translators errors. But it's my bible of choice for some of the reasons you gave. BTW Gail Ripplinger has done an extensive study on this subject i think it's on google video ?

Bethany67
Aug 10th 2008, 12:02 PM
I use the NIV mainly (it's not led me astray), but I've recently discovered the NLT. The KJV would be one of my last choices; if it works for other people, then great, but the people round me here barely speak modern English, let alone the English of 400 years ago - the KJV would utterly confuse them if I quoted it to them, and I much prefer clarity above human tradition. There probably are good things in the KJV, a lot of people prefer it, but it's definitely not for me, and I think there's a real danger of people idolising a single translation. In practice I think we probably have most of the English translations here in the house (as well as Greek, French, German and Italian) and I'll compare several at a time for study.

Bethany67
Aug 10th 2008, 12:06 PM
Re 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

it doesn't say that we can't add or take away words, but rather not to add to or take away what the Word says: it was Jesus that died for our sins not Adam, it was Satan that fell from heaven not Jesus and Jesus was the Christ,

This is a commonly heard argument but it's without merit - it refers to the single text of the book of Revelation, not the whole of scripture (much as we'd like it to do otherwise!)

I've known many many Christians who use the NIV, and not a single one has confused Adam and Jesus, or Jesus and Satan. In fact the only people who seem to come to this conclusion are the KJV fans.

ananias
Aug 10th 2008, 12:08 PM
The King James Bible is the one for me!

check the two verses out in the NIV

Isaiah 14:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=14&verse=12&version=31&context=verse)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Revelation 22:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=22&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Jesus was cast down and fell from heaven I think not, here is who the KJB says that fell from heaven.

Isa 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!



The word "Lucifer" does not appear in the Hebrew - the Hebrew is a reference to the morning star: heylel ben shachar - "bright shining star, son of the morning"

The word Lucifer appeared in the Latin Vulgate because Lucifer is the ancient Latin name for the morning star, who the ancient Latin people worshiped as a god.

The reference in Isaiah is satire: The morning star attempts to rise above "the stars of God" but is brought low - it was a prophecy against the king of Babylon, a type of antichrist.

Jesus rose above "the stars of God" when He rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven, so He refers to Himself as "the morning star" in the Revelation.

Personally, I use the NKJV (New King James) - but when I read the Old Testament, I read the New Living Translation first, and then the NKJV - because there are a lot of Hebrew terms and references to things in the Old Testament which the KJV and NKJV translate literally, and the meaning is lost unless one goes to hte trouble of looking up commentaries all the time - but the New Living Translation translates it with "dynamic equivalence", so that the meaning is brought out in the translation without having to go to commenataries all the time to find out what is being spoken about.

ananias

Bethany67
Aug 10th 2008, 12:12 PM
I'm finding that the Old Testament is really coming alive for me via the NLT. But then on the word-for-word/dynamic equivalent scale, I probably lean closer to the latter end. It's a huge topic and one we considered when I was training with Wycliffe Bible Translators.

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 10th 2008, 12:34 PM
The King James Bible is the one for me!

check the two verses out in the NIV

Isaiah 14:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=14&verse=12&version=31&context=verse)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
Revelation 22:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=22&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Jesus was cast down and fell from heaven I think not, here is who the KJB says that fell from heaven.

Isa 14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Notice the small "m" and the small "s"...And the big "M" and big "S":hmm: That should be your first warning.

I've seen this argument against the NIV before. The Isaiah passage by no means hints to Jesus. Look at the name of Lucifier...

1966 הֵילֵל [heylel /hay·lale/] AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1744003#_ftn5) translates as “Lucifer” once. 1 shining one, morning star, Lucifer. 1a of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.). 2 (TWOT) ‘Helel’ describing the king of Babylon. Additional Information: Lucifer = “light-bearer”.[/URL]




I will stick with the one that was the English Bible for about four Hundred years before man said we need a easier translation to understand, when God said, if you seek wisdom ask God, so we followed man, instead of God, and thus creating even more confusion in the Body of Christ, not only do we have to try and figure out which Church but now which Bible. Satan twisted God's Word in the Garden of Eden, again Satan tried to twist God's Word in the wilderness while tempting Jesus, and again Satan has twisted God's word with all the modern Bibles (he is pretty good at what he does).

One constant in language is that it always changes. No, God's meaning never changes but the language that we use to describe those words will always change especially when you are crossing from one language to another but it even happens within that same language. Sometimes that change happens over the course of a 100 years and sometimes it happens in just a couple of years.



For those that think the NASB (new American Standard) is the better translation check out John 4:29

29"Come, see a man ([URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john4:29;&version=49;#cen-NASB-26186A"]A (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1744003#_ftn6))who told me all the things that I have done; (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john4:29;&version=49;#cen-NASB-26186B))this is not the Christ, is it?"


the woman at the well implies that Jesus was not the Christ.


No, she was just asking a question. Don't read so much into it...even the King James "VERSION" has a question mark at the end of verse 29.



then take John 3:16 where most modern translations take the word begotten out and reads the one and only Son, funny thing is I read that through Jesus Christ I to can be and am a son of God, so does the Word of God lie? am I a son also or is John 3:16 true in the Niv does God have only a one and only Son? to much confusion.

Are you serious? Come on...:rolleyes:


Let me sum this up ever heard the old saying if it ain't broke then don't fix it. The KJB wasn't broke, so why did we try to fix it.

Then we didn't need the KJVersion. Textually there was nothing wrong with the Latin. So we really didn't need the KJVersion using your logic...The Latin wasn't broke so we didn't need to fix it. We can even go back a step further and say that the Greek wasn't broke so we really didn't need the Latin. If you want to say that we needed an English version then there was nothing broken with the Tyndale Bible...so it didn't need fixed. Actually, it looks like the translators of the KJVersion copied Tyndale's work word for word.

2 Peter 2:20
Aug 10th 2008, 12:41 PM
Thaddaeus,

I wonder why you listed the KJV as the KJB? Are you trying to forget that the "V" stands for "VERSION"?:hmm:

tt1106
Aug 10th 2008, 12:43 PM
I use them all. I have a parallel and e-sword has several different translations available. My favorite has the Greek and Hebrew translation which really helps understand God's intent.
I highly recommend a parallel.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 10th 2008, 05:10 PM
I stay away form liberal translations like the TNIV.TNIV is no more liberal than NIV. It is, in fact, more accurate. There is not one incident of gender neutralizing of the original texts in TNIV. The only gender neutralizing was where the NIV had imposed a gender identity on the original text that was never there. The rumors you've heard were started by fundamentalists and have tragically spread from there.

poochie
Aug 10th 2008, 05:55 PM
I use the NIV mainly (it's not led me astray), but I've recently discovered the NLT. The KJV would be one of my last choices; if it works for other people, then great, but the people round me here barely speak modern English, let alone the English of 400 years ago - the KJV would utterly confuse them if I quoted it to them, and I much prefer clarity above human tradition. There probably are good things in the KJV, a lot of people prefer it, but it's definitely not for me, and I think there's a real danger of people idolising a single translation. In practice I think we probably have most of the English translations here in the house (as well as Greek, French, German and Italian) and I'll compare several at a time for study.

Amen sister!

I was reading a passage last night in the KJV and was confused. So I opened my NIV and the meaning came to me. Praise the Lord for translations like the NIV!

mcgyver
Aug 10th 2008, 06:01 PM
I have quite a few versions that I use to compare and get the sense of different verses, but the ones that I use most often are:

NKJV. I use this most often, as our pew bibles match. I also use this and the KJV when I want to see what the underlying Textus Receptus has to say.

KJV (1769). I love the prose and (I'll say it) majestic language...

NASB. When I want to compare a verse to the underlying NA/UBS text

To a lesser extent:

HCSB. Seems to have a balanced approach to translation philosophy...somewhere between formal and dynamic equivalence.

NIV. Nothing inherently wrong...I just prefer formal equivalence in translation.

NLT. Ibid.

Ones that I don't use:

The Message. At best I find this a commentary rather than a translation.

poochie
Aug 10th 2008, 06:04 PM
A very well constructed post.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James Williams, pp. 153.


The scriptures must be in the vulgar language of the people… God's Word should be in the language of the people so they can understand its commands, savor its promises, relive the Bible stories, and carefully study its truth. This is extremely difficult when over four thousand words in the King James Bible are not found in even the best of our one volume English dictionaries today. In their day, the KJV translators were opposed by many for making a new translation of the Scriptures. The Geneva Bible was good enough! Yet, many obsolete expressions were already making that copy of the written word very difficult to understand.


Notice the small "m" and the small "s"...And the big "M" and big "S":hmm: That should be your first warning.

I've seen this argument against the NIV before. The Isaiah passage by no means hints to Jesus. Look at the name of Lucifier...

1966הֵילֵל [heylel /hay·lale/] AV (http://bibleforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1744003#_ftn5) translates as “Lucifer” once. 1 shining one, morning star, Lucifer. 1a of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.). 2 (TWOT) ‘Helel’ describing the king of Babylon. Additional Information: Lucifer = “light-bearer”.





One constant in language is that it always changes. No, God's meaning never changes but the language that we use to describe those words will always change especially when you are crossing from one language to another but it even happens within that same language. Sometimes that change happens over the course of a 100 years and sometimes it happens in just a couple of years.



No, she was just asking a question. Don't read so much into it...even the King James "VERSION" has a question mark at the end of verse 29.




Are you serious? Come on...:rolleyes:



Then we didn't need the KJVersion. Textually there was nothing wrong with the Latin. So we really didn't need the KJVersion using your logic...The Latin wasn't broke so we didn't need to fix it. We can even go back a step further and say that the Greek wasn't broke so we really didn't need the Latin. If you want to say that we needed an English version then there was nothing broken with the Tyndale Bible...so it didn't need fixed. Actually, it looks like the translators of the KJVersion copied Tyndale's work word for word.

poochie
Aug 10th 2008, 06:07 PM
TNIV is no more liberal than NIV. It is, in fact, more accurate. There is not one incident of gender neutralizing of the original texts in TNIV. The only gender neutralizing was where the NIV had imposed a gender identity on the original text that was never there. The rumors you've heard were started by fundamentalists and have tragically spread from there.

Read this article.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/TNIV.htm

Literalist-Luke
Aug 10th 2008, 06:53 PM
Read this article.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/TNIV.htmAll of the gender changes that are cited in that article are examples where the original NIV translated the original text inaccurately because of tradition that was handed down from the KJV. Fortunately, the TNIV has now corrected those centuries-old errors.

poochie
Aug 10th 2008, 07:00 PM
All of the gender changes that are cited in that article are examples where the original NIV translated the original text inaccurately because of tradition that was handed down from the KJV. Fortunately, the TNIV has now corrected those centuries-old errors.


Did you actually read the article word for word? I strongly encourage you to PRINT the article and read it word for word.

What you say is not correct and the article very clearly rebuffs the TNIV.

scourge39
Aug 10th 2008, 07:09 PM
The whole TNIV debate was/is greatly overblown. With the exception of those who died since the original NIV was published (who naturally had to be replaced), the same translators worked on the TNIV. Most of those people listed on the No-TNIV site & other detractors are simply popular radio preachers and authors who have the ears of the masses and realize they can influence them because of it. Very few of them are professional linguists and as such, are not qualified to judge the accuracy/inaccuracy of a translation. Very few TNIV detractors have actually bothered to read it, and their ignorant comments concerning it illustrate that quite nicely.

Lo-Lo
Aug 10th 2008, 07:58 PM
I use the NKJV and like to cross reference with KJV and the NASB. I like having the 3 Bibles out and studying the scripture in depth. When I have all 3 out DH knows a great discussion is about to unfold.....LOL..

The Parson
Aug 10th 2008, 08:42 PM
Just a word to the spiritually wise. This subject can get out of hand very quickly. Any post that is placed out of anger and attacks a persons personal convictions will be deleted and the poster "will" receive an infraction. If you do not agree with a persons choice of Bibles, reason with them. If not received, move on to the next point...

Please mention you understand this in your next post everybody.

Friend of I AM
Aug 10th 2008, 08:43 PM
This is an Evangelical web board so this topic may not be as heated as it would be in a Fundamentalist web board. But out of curiosity what is everyones preferred choice?

I grew up with the NIV and srtill prefer it for my general reading/study. However I have noticed the ESV in recent days and have found it to be a little more literal than the NIV. The KJV is a better evangelism/memorization bible and I use this as well.

I stay away form liberal translations like the TNIV, the Message,etc..

NIV and King James for me. I love the NIV. I don't know why so many people have complaints about it, it's gotta be one of the most accurately translated versions aside from the King James.

poochie
Aug 11th 2008, 12:05 AM
Moderators.

I am sorry if I posted a topic that will start a flame. But then again I guess that depends on the audience. Since this audience is mostly evangelical I cant imagine I'd receive the ABUSE here like I have on some Fundamentalist boards.

I agree with you Friend of I AM. I love the NIV!


God bless it.


NIV and King James for me. I love the NIV. I don't know why so many people have complaints about it, it's gotta be one of the most accurately translated versions aside from the King James.

Sold Out
Aug 11th 2008, 12:09 AM
This is an Evangelical web board so this topic may not be as heated as it would be in a Fundamentalist web board. But out of curiosity what is everyones preferred choice?

I grew up with the NIV and srtill prefer it for my general reading/study. However I have noticed the ESV in recent days and have found it to be a little more literal than the NIV. The KJV is a better evangelism/memorization bible and I use this as well.

I stay away form liberal translations like the TNIV, the Message,etc..

I primarily use KJV & NKJV, but I also like NIV. However, I do not place a great deal of faith in any one translation and always use my greek and hebrew concordances to get the more accurate meanings of scripture.

ServantofTruth
Aug 11th 2008, 12:39 AM
I have King James, CEV, NIV, Jerusalem and a few more. I sometimes see my brothers and sisters post showing such knowledge and am glad i have you all to share the Word of God with and learn.

I would happily read your favourite translation/ version and i hope you would read mine.



BIG SofTy SofT outside, multiple bible core. :pp

calidog
Aug 11th 2008, 01:21 AM
I read the New Living Translation daily. I like the ease for faster reading and paragraph style.

I listen to commentary from the KJV and/or NKJV

I search and study from the KJV

seamus414
Aug 11th 2008, 01:21 AM
This is an Evangelical web board so this topic may not be as heated as it would be in a Fundamentalist web board. But out of curiosity what is everyones preferred choice?

I grew up with the NIV and srtill prefer it for my general reading/study. However I have noticed the ESV in recent days and have found it to be a little more literal than the NIV. The KJV is a better evangelism/memorization bible and I use this as well.

I stay away form liberal translations like the TNIV, the Message,etc..


The RSV is the one for me. It retains the reverance of the Authorized Bible while including new manuscript finds. It has also been endorced by the largest number of Christians. I like it.

scourge39
Aug 11th 2008, 01:25 AM
This is an Evangelical web board so this topic may not be as heated as it would be in a Fundamentalist web board. But out of curiosity what is everyones preferred choice?

I grew up with the NIV and srtill prefer it for my general reading/study. However I have noticed the ESV in recent days and have found it to be a little more literal than the NIV. The KJV is a better evangelism/memorization bible and I use this as well.

I stay away form liberal translations like the TNIV, the Message,etc..

The Message is not liberal. It's a paraphrase, not a translation, much like the old Living Bible from John Taylor. The man who created it, Eugene Peterson, is a committed, conservative Evangelical.

scourge39
Aug 11th 2008, 01:30 AM
The RSV is the one for me. It retains the reverance of the Authorized Bible while including new manuscript finds. It has also been endorced by the largest number of Christians. I like it.

Give the English Standard Version (ESV) a try. It's a revision of the RSV created by Evangelicals that doesn't exhibit any of the liberal tendencies of the World Council of Churches. It's essentially a new RSV for Evangelicals.

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 01:30 AM
They are all amazingly accurate, even the KJV. I prefer the NASB or the ESV as I feel they are closest to the original laguages and still use modern english.

scourge39
Aug 11th 2008, 01:33 AM
Just a word to the spiritually wise. This subject can get out of hand very quickly. Any post that is placed out of anger and attacks a persons personal convictions will be deleted and the poster "will" receive an infraction. If you do not agree with a persons choice of Bibles, reason with them. If not received, move on to the next point...

Please mention you understand this in your next post everybody.

Understood. No personal attacks will be launched by me.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 11th 2008, 02:48 AM
What you say is not correct and the article very clearly rebuffs the TNIV.I did read the entire article. It primarily attacks the TNIV for making changes to the NIV. That's the whole point of the TNIV, to update the NIV. The article is assuming that the NIV is the accurate translation, when in fact, it is only the more traditional of the two. Tradition does not equal accuracy. The TNIV does a better of job of rendering the meaning intended by the original writers.

seamus414
Aug 11th 2008, 02:51 AM
Give the English Standard Version (ESV) a try. It's a revision of the RSV created by Evangelicals that doesn't exhibit any of the liberal tendencies of the World Council of Churches. It's essentially a new RSV for Evangelicals.


How is the RSV liberal?

scourge39
Aug 11th 2008, 03:44 AM
How is the RSV liberal?

and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22:18, RSV)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)

These are the 2 primary criticisms of the RSV. It's rendering of these OT passages creates discontinuity between the NT's rendering of them in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16 & Matthew 1:23 respectively.

Also, it ambiguously translates the 2 NT passages that condemn homosexuality:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (1 Corinthians 6:9, RSV)

immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, RSV)

poochie
Aug 11th 2008, 08:08 AM
They are all amazingly accurate, even the KJV. I prefer the NASB or the ESV as I feel they are closest to the original laguages and still use modern english.

I would agree about the ESV as I also use it. Its not as readable as the NIV, but its not far behind.

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 12:48 PM
A dear friend of mine is a textual critic at Cambridge Univesity and he LOVES the NIV and feels it is closest to the Greek followed by the NASB. It is a matter of the focus of the given intepretation. The NIV tries to make the text the most readable while maintaining integrity to the scripture while the NASB and the ESV put "word for word" and "phrase for phrase" integrity above readability...

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 12:54 PM
Also, it ambiguously translates the 2 NT passages that condemn homosexuality:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (1 Corinthians 6:9, RSV)

immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, RSV)

Both of those scriptures are accurately translated. Both of those do nothing to "soften" the Bible's stance on homosexuality.

seamus414
Aug 11th 2008, 01:15 PM
and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22:18, RSV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
These are the 2 primary criticisms of the RSV. It's rendering of these OT passages creates discontinuity between the NT's rendering of them in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16 & Matthew 1:23 respectively.
Also, it ambiguously translates the 2 NT passages that condemn homosexuality:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (1 Corinthians 6:9, RSV)
immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, RSV)


I do not think these things are issues or even liberal:
--Gen 22:18 seems to just be a word order issue. I do not see a reason to "fix" discontinuity where it is perceived to exist. We should read the words as they apear, not adjust them to make them more "consistent."
--Isaiah 7:14 - the Hebrew does not say virgin and I see no reason to theologically "fix" so that it can say it.
--The word "homosexual" is not a greek word and is not in the Bible, therefore it has no place in the Scriptures. Give me the words of the Bible only.

Firefighter
Aug 11th 2008, 03:45 PM
Easy with that request. If you did an actual word for word without focusing on readability straight from greek to English, it simply would not make sense...