PDA

View Full Version : Another NEW Bible translation-



Diggindeeper
Mar 4th 2011, 04:54 AM
In this NEW NAB, "the virgin" will become "the young woman" in new Catholic translation, which is shocking to me. So now, Mary, the 'Mother of God', was just a 'young woman'???
(I didn't know the NAB was a Catholic translation to begin with........)


Here's the story and link:



New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust" | General Headlines | Comcast.net

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110304/news.biblechangeswords/

CHICAGO (Reuters) – A new edition of one the most popular English-language Bibles will offer substitutes for words such as "booty" and "holocaust" to better reflect modern understanding, a Catholic group said on Wednesday.

Nearly 50 scholars from all faiths and a committee of Roman Catholic bishops have labored since 1994 over the first fresh edition of the New American Bible since 1970, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said.
The annual best-seller to be issued by a dozen publishers beginning next week on Ash Wednesday "is a beautiful translation -- it's a new way to look at an old love," said Mary Sperry, who oversees Bible licensing for the bishops.
The changes go beyond a few words being altered, and include freshly-written notes that should help readers better understand the Catholic church's interpretation of biblical concepts, Sperry said. The Book of Psalms contains over 70,000 words, both text and notes, she said.

The revisions more accurately reflect translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament and the constant evolution of modern-day language, Sperry said.

For example, the word "holocaust," which for most people refers to the World War Two genocide of Jews, was changed to "burnt offerings," which clarifies the original, positive idea of making offerings to God.

"Booty," which has come to have a sexual connotation, was changed to "spoils of war;" and "cereal," which many think of as breakfast food, became "grain" to reference loads of wheat.

In a change in a passage in Isaiah 7:14 that foretells the coming of Jesus and his birth to a virgin mother, the 1970 edition's reference to "the virgin" will become "the young woman," to better translate the Hebrew word "almah."
"The bishops and the Bible are not signaling any sort of change in the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. None whatsoever," Sperry added.

The new edition will revert to more poetic versions of Psalm 23 to have it read, "I walk through the valley of the shadow of death," instead of "dark valley." And "I will dwell in the house of the Lord for years to come" was changed to "for endless days," which Sperry said carried a more profound and hopeful meaning.

The current edition of the New American Bible sold more than one million copies last year, mostly in the United States, the Philippines, India, and Africa. The new version could spark a pickup in sales, Sperry predicted.
The edition will be available in many formats: as a family hardback, a basic paperback, as an "e-book," as an "app" for cell phones, and in a Braille version.

Seems to me it DOES change the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus.

Amos_with_goats
Mar 4th 2011, 04:58 AM
:rolleyes:


Oh my.... what a travesty.

:eek:

miepie
Mar 4th 2011, 06:42 AM
I think it's ridiculous that they change those texts.......

Here where I live we got a new translations Bible when we were married...... although I love the white cover and that it was given on such a special occassion, I don't like reading in it and I never will...... they have made it from a Bible with very beautiful language into a storybook with simple wording...... it may be easier for children to read now but for me I don't like it....... I love the old translation much better....... but when we read the English Bible, then we always choose the KJV..... I love that language too! :pp

Love you all lots,
Mieke :kiss:

notuptome
Mar 4th 2011, 01:06 PM
The catholics in my wifes family do not read their bible so it is not likely to influence them. Most catholics abandoned their best translation of the bible long ago. Not that they were really ever encouraged to read it anyway since they were not allowed to understand it. I remember when their bibles were written in Latin and their liturgy was all done in Latin.

Mary was never the "Mother of God". God is eternal and Mary is not.

New translations translate into new profits for the publisher. It must be conceded that reading a bad translation is better than reading nothing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Luke34
Mar 4th 2011, 02:16 PM
I remember when their bibles were written in Latin and their liturgy was all done in Latin.Really? You remember when the Vulgate was the only Bible in use by the Catholic Church? Unless you are hundreds of years older than I thought you were, no you don't.

Also, I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Some words in a translation of an ancient text were replaced because they no longer mean, in English, what they once did? Stop the presses. And to answer the OP's question, no, it says right there in the article (you have to read the entire sentence) that it specifically refers to one verse in Isaiah, because "young woman" was a better translation than "virgin." You can't keep an inferior translation just because you like it better.

(I actually am surprised at the widespread adulation of the King James Bible. I mean, I love it, but I didn't think difficult, thunderous 17th-century Shakespearean prose was everyone's thing. I guess it is! Or is it just because it happened to be first(ish)?)

Vhayes
Mar 4th 2011, 03:50 PM
I may be wrong here but please bear with me and also, please don't rend me limb from limb.

I "thought" the NAB tried to be as word for word literal as possible. I also understood the word translated as "virgin" to mean, literally "young woman". So, the translators are remaining accurate and carrying out their commission.

I had also "thought" that, due to the culture and the times in which the gospels were written, young woman was synonymous with virgin.

Firefighter
Mar 4th 2011, 04:52 PM
R(I actually am surprised at the widespread adulation of the King James Bible. I mean, I love it, but I didn't think difficult, thunderous 17th-century Shakespearean prose was everyone's thing. I guess it is! Or is it just because it happened to be first(ish)?)

Silly, it just sounds more spiritual. :D

Diggindeeper
Mar 4th 2011, 05:10 PM
Not really. The KJV used to be the only thing we had. There were no other versions or translations that were being sold until 40 years ago, in the early 1970's. The KJV was what we memorized, what we were used to, and for me, reading any other Bible now is like reading just another book. And the reality is that no one memorizes scripture any more.

It has nothing to do with 'sounding more spiritual.'

But, I do say that to call Mary, not a virgin, but a 'young woman' DOES imply that she was just a young girl who got pregnant. It does change how the reader SEES the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ!

Anyway, maybe its just me, but if I want to read a Catholic version or translation, I'll just go buy a Catholic one!

All these scholars may claim the many translations are to help people understand better, but I don't believe it. Its all for sales which translated means MONEY!

The Mighty Sword
Mar 4th 2011, 05:12 PM
Oh good another translation. :rolleyes: from "the catholics".

Diggindeeper
Mar 4th 2011, 05:12 PM
I may be wrong here but please bear with me and also, please don't rend me limb from limb.

I "thought" the NAB tried to be as word for word literal as possible. I also understood the word translated as "virgin" to mean, literally "young woman". So, the translators are remaining accurate and carrying out their commission.

I had also "thought" that, due to the culture and the times in which the gospels were written, young woman was synonymous with virgin.

V, they all, each and every one of the translations or versions make a claim of being the best one, the most accurate, etc.

Ta-An
Mar 4th 2011, 05:13 PM
Mary, the 'Mother of God', was just a 'young woman'???

....But that is what the Hebrew actually says ....:D

Diggindeeper
Mar 4th 2011, 05:23 PM
....But that is what the Hebrew actually says ....:D

Then Tt-An, could that be one reason why the Jewish people don't accept the virgin birth as a proof that they should not accept Jesus as their Messiah?

jayne
Mar 4th 2011, 05:50 PM
As Roger has said, Mary was not the Mother of God. (And as a side note there was no Immaculate Conception - which is the Catholic teaching that Mary was born without a sin nature and remained sinless).

There was indeed a Virgin Birth. It's explained very concretely in the gospels and it is part of the prophecy in Isaiah 7.

But Isaiah 7 has two prophecies - an immediate one NOT concerning Mary and Jesus, but Ahaz and an unknown woman and a distant prophecy certainly about Mary and her giving birth to a son without having had sex with any man ever.

Isaiah 7 says this in a nutshell.

King Ahaz of the southern kingdom (Judah) was terrified when he found out that King Pekah of the northern kingdom (Israel) has joined up with the king of Syria to attack Jerusalem (in the southern kingdom). He panicked and so did his people.

God told Isaiah, "Take your son and go to see King Ahaz. Tell him to quit worrying. Those two kings are ticked off, but they are all bark and no bite. I will NOT allow their plans to invade Judah and Jerusalem come to pass, I promise you that.

The only place that King Pekah controls in the northern kingdom is Samaria and in 65 years the northern kingdom of Isreal will be broken. And if you don't trust me, you will be defeated."

Soon after, the LORD spoke directly to King Ahaz. He said "Ask me for proof that my promise will come true. Ask for something to happen deep in the world of the dead or high in the heavens above."

Ahaz told God a resounding "no". He said that he would not test Him. This was a BIG no-no, because it was proof that Ahaz did NOT trust God.

So God said, "You've already tried my patience and now you are doing it again by refusing to trust Me and My proof. But I'm going to give you a sign anyway. A young woman is going to get pregnant and she is going to have a son and name him Immanuel. Even before he is old enough to distinguish right from wrong, he will be eating yogurt and honey. And by that time the two countries that you are so afraid of will be destroyed."

Then God goes on to tell Ahaz that the Assyrians will come and attack Judah on God's command.

This immediate prophecy has to do with an unknown girl who did NOT have miraculous virgin birth, but a normal birth and a timeline for Ahaz to know when the Assyrians would attack. The distant prophecy has to do with Mary who DID experience a supernaturual and genuine Virgin Birth.

And the word "virgin" in this passage is "almah" and it literally means a "young woman" - she can be unmarried or newly married or so says the Hebrew definition. A literal virgin nor not. I think the use of that word here suits the immediate prophecy (the unknown young woman who HAD already had sexual relations with a husband and the distant prophecy of Mary who had never had sex.)

"Young woman" is the literal translation.

Ta-An
Mar 4th 2011, 07:04 PM
Then Tt-An, could that be one reason why the Jewish people don't accept the virgin birth as a proof that they should not accept Jesus as their Messiah?:dunno: I can only tell you what the Hebrew says :D

Ta-An
Mar 4th 2011, 07:12 PM
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]"Young woman" is the literal translation.

We are losing a lot in translation... because it has to be literal to be correct, yet we do not get the 'meaning' of the culture of the language/people :D
It is a catch 22 situation ... do you translate and tell the story according to the meaning... or do you just sit with a dictionary and translete word for word :hmm:

Example..... In my language I'll say :"Ek is lief vir jou" Direct translation,,, as you'll find with one of the soft-ware translaters .... :"I is love for you" where it actually means :"I love you"
Another example I can think of : "My swaer" direct translation:"My heavy" which is incorrect, it should be:"My brother in-law"
:D

jayne
Mar 4th 2011, 07:27 PM
We are losing a lot in translation... because it has to be literal to be correct, yet we do not get the 'meaning' of the culture of the language/people :D
It is a catch 22 situation ... do you translate and tell the story according to the meaning... or do you just sit with a dictionary and translete word for word :hmm:

Example..... In my language I'll say :"Ek is lief vir jou" Direct translation,,, as you'll find with one of the soft-ware translaters .... :"I is love for you" where it actually means :"I love you"
Another example I can think of : "My swaer" direct translation:"My heavy" which is incorrect, it should be:"My brother in-law"
:D

You make a valid point.

notuptome
Mar 4th 2011, 08:00 PM
Really? You remember when the Vulgate was the only Bible in use by the Catholic Church? Unless you are hundreds of years older than I thought you were, no you don't.

Also, I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Some words in a translation of an ancient text were replaced because they no longer mean, in English, what they once did? Stop the presses. And to answer the OP's question, no, it says right there in the article (you have to read the entire sentence) that it specifically refers to one verse in Isaiah, because "young woman" was a better translation than "virgin." You can't keep an inferior translation just because you like it better.

(I actually am surprised at the widespread adulation of the King James Bible. I mean, I love it, but I didn't think difficult, thunderous 17th-century Shakespearean prose was everyone's thing. I guess it is! Or is it just because it happened to be first(ish)?)
I still run into old timers who long for the good old days when the mass was said in latin. Guess we just have some real developmentally retarded folks in our part of this old world. You must abide in a more progressive part of the world.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

decrumpit
Mar 4th 2011, 09:04 PM
(I actually am surprised at the widespread adulation of the King James Bible. I mean, I love it, but I didn't think difficult, thunderous 17th-century Shakespearean prose was everyone's thing. I guess it is! Or is it just because it happened to be first(ish)?)

A...A...... Are you saying that there's no such thing as a unicorn :eek:

9623


Guess we just have some real developmentally retarded folks in our part of this old world.

Some masses are still said in Latin, and if you want to ever reach these people with the love of Jesus I would suggest you do not call them retarded.

Luke34
Mar 4th 2011, 09:45 PM
I still run into old timers who long for the good old days when the mass was said in latin. Guess we just have some real developmentally retarded folks in our part of this old world. You must abide in a more progressive part of the world.I said the Bible. If you remember a time when Catholics only read the Bible in Latin, then you are hundreds of years old. I think the more likely solution is that you don't entirely know what you're talking about.

Also, the new Mass (Novus Ordo) is not just a translation of the Latin Mass, it's an entirely different ceremony that shares some of the same text. The structure of the service plays a more important role, as do particular gestures, movements, etc. It's like a formalised (not the same as "formal"), highly symbolic piece of sacred theater. This obviously isn't everyone's "thing," but wanting to preserve it isn't anti-progressive or some dumb thing like that. The Mass is an important part of Christian intellectual/spiritual history, and also of non-Christian cultural history (James Joyce was no Catholic, but Ulysses wouldn't be nearly the same without the influence, the echoes and quotations, of the Latin Mass).

Also, "developmentally retarded" does not mean "culturally backward" or something like that, which is what you seem to think it means. It means actually having mental retardation. So congratulations! You just stated that people who prefer a different form of worship than you are literally mentally retarded. That's got to be a record of some sort.

Luke34
Mar 4th 2011, 09:47 PM
Oh good another translation. :rolleyes: from "the catholics"."Catholic" takes an initial capital when it refers to the Christian denomination. If you do not capitalize it, it means "universal." That is not what you meant. Also, there's no conceivable reason it should have scare quotes. I feel like you should have learned this by now!

Luke34
Mar 4th 2011, 09:52 PM
Not really. The KJV used to be the only thing we had. There were no other versions or translations that were being sold until 40 years ago, in the early 1970's.
That't not exactly true. Apparently many Bible translations do postdate 1970, but there were many other translations before then. The American Standard Version dates from 1901.

Anyway, I know people grew up with it and such, it's just interesting that people have fallen so in love with a difficult, highly stylized 17th-century text. Not that that's a bad thing.


All these scholars may claim the many translations are to help people understand better, but I don't believe it. Its all for sales which translated means MONEY!I don't know, but I kind of doubt a slightly altered Bible translation is exactly a cash cow for one individual Hebrew scholar who worked on it. Don't automatically question people's motives for no reason at all. You have no reason to believe they are lying.

Luke34
Mar 4th 2011, 09:57 PM
As regards literalism vs. contextual meaning, I'd say that in this case, both of them indicate that it should be "young woman." Since, as someone said, the immediate object of the prophecy was not a virgin birth, it makes no real sense to retroactively translate it that way. Stick to what the text actually says and means, not to an interpretation of the text based on later events.

The Mighty Sword
Mar 4th 2011, 10:31 PM
"Catholic" takes an initial capital when it refers to the Christian denomination. If you do not capitalize it, it means "universal." That is not what you meant. Also, there's no conceivable reason it should have scare quotes. I feel like you should have learned this by now!

Thanks for "feeling"

Luke34
Mar 5th 2011, 01:36 AM
Thanks for "feeling"What does that even mean?

RevLogos
Mar 5th 2011, 07:06 PM
As others have pointed out the Hebrew word could mean virgin, or could mean young woman. However, in the Septuagint, the Koine Greek version of the OT available to the Gospel writers, it was translated as “virgin” (the Greek parthenos). That is evidence that the Jews, at least around the 2nd century BC, took the meaning to be “virgin”. When Isaiah 7:14 is quoted in Mat 1:23, he says “The virgin will conceive and bear a son…”. Matthew is quoting the Septuagint.

So we know the meaning to be virgin because that is how the Septuagint translated it, and that is how Matthew understood it. Because of this, the word has been understood as “virgin” since the earliest days of Christianity. If it is not “virgin”, and if this prophesy from Isaiah does not refer to Jesus, then Matthew was wrong.

NAB wouldn’t be the first to change “virgin” to something else. The NET uses “young woman” and the Jerusalem Bible uses “maiden”.

But if they changed Mat 1:23, then we’d have a conspiracy.

The Mighty Sword
Mar 5th 2011, 11:01 PM
What does that even mean?

Original quote:


Originally Posted by Luke34
"Catholic" takes an initial capital when it refers to the Christian denomination. If you do not capitalize it, it means "universal." That is not what you meant. Also, there's no conceivable reason it should have scare quotes. I feel like you should have learned this by now!

Now do you get what "you" even mean???

the sound
Mar 5th 2011, 11:28 PM
I still run into old timers who long for the good old days when the mass was said in latin. Guess we just have some real developmentally retarded folks in our part of this old world. You must abide in a more progressive part of the world.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I really don't like the word retarded.

Diggindeeper
Mar 6th 2011, 12:07 AM
I really don't like the word retarded.

I don't like that word thrown out there either..........

Its quite unnecessary....

notuptome
Mar 6th 2011, 12:19 AM
I don't like that word thrown out there either..........

Its quite unnecessary....
It is a perfectly good word but politically taboo. To retard is to hold back, to delay.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Ashley274
Mar 6th 2011, 06:33 AM
I am lost because I was not long ago to a Catholic mass and they read from the KJV ...they had 3 readings

Diggindeeper
Mar 6th 2011, 06:36 AM
Wow! Then, so they just want the MONEY their new version MIGHT bring in???