Professor wants all to read one Bible

indystar/religion news service ^ | 012404 | Douglas Todd

[InvisibleChurch]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- An American academic wants to see a Bible translation, put together by scores of conservative scholars, become the one Bible everyone uses.

Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton College near Chicago, said the new English Standard Version Bible, whose translation was overseen by Vancouver's J.I. Packer, is the only one with the potential to become the universal Bible of all English-speaking Christians.

[joesbucks]

Denominations certainly beat the heck out of trying to make all Christianity homogeneous in their theology. That's been tried before, and it resulted in horrors like the Inquisition.

What's wrong with homogenity of belief if it's the true belief? The question is......is your belief true is is mine? Or is neither?

[scripter]

Think context whenever you read the Bible. Read an entire letter and think upon it - don't use one sentence to build an empire.

Excellent. I'm always saying: Context is everything. Unfortunately many folks don't understand the concept of context. Many insist a verse says something it doesn't say at all and getting them to look outside their bias or thoughts can be a challenging task. I hope you read that in context. ;-)

[Gorjus]

My two cents is that if you are really interested in the content of the New Testament you have to learn to read the original language which is Koine..

Well, that's a pretty hard line to take. I would maintain that I am really interested, but . . .

If you would allow me a slight modification, then we could agree. "If you are interested in obtaining the fullest possible, and most accurate understanding of the New Testament, then you need to learn to read the original language."

As you said, it is only your opinion, and of course you're welcome to that. My counter opinion, worth exactly the nothing you have paid for it, is that the point of greatest leverage is to take advantage of the scholarship of others by reading several English translations, plus study of the Greek word by word at key points. It is certainly possible that this course would lead to misunderstanding. But in the end, the choice must be made on whether an hour spent learning the original language is worth more or less than an hour spent studying additional passages. In the best of all worlds, we could do both. But the mundane world has a habit of interfering.

And I think it is good to remember that God is the author of the world as well as the author of the Word, so time spent studying a book, even the Bible, if it means one never looks at the world He gave us is not guaranteed to be optimal, either. So in the end, it comes down to where we choose to put our time and treasure - and even those who are 'really interested' in the New Testament may find they have to make tradeoffs that don't allow the time to become expert enough in a language that their own understanding is comparable to devoted specialists.

[BibChr]

I do that. When I preach or read, I just do the reverse of what the Pharisees used to do. When YHWH occured, they said the Hebrew word for "Lord." When I see LORD, I say Yahweh.

Dan

[fdcc]

The issue is authority. What you are looking for is a clear voice to teach the essential matters of faith and morals and the guarantee that this voice will never teach error in such important matters.

This is one of the reasons I became a Catholic.

[lepton]

I always find it helpful to read multiple translations to get a truer sense of the pre-translation writing. It gives a lot more nuance.

[sonrise57]

say what?

[lepton]

but for pure poetic purposes, "modernizing" Scriptural English is like rewriting a Shakespeare sonnet in ebonics.

More like re-writing it as a tech manual. :)

[joesbucks]

I, unlike you, don't want authority as in telling me what to do, but rather leading and teaching me the proper way to have my faith.

You can have authority, yet be kind and thoughtful, but many (most) can't balance both.

[mhking]

"You will pray MY way or not at all..."

Sounds a bit like the "theocracy" sand-based religion that we're all familiar with...

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[padfoot_lover]

The Navarre is like a Desktop and the Jerusalem is like a portable laptop.

So true!

[sonrise57]

I agree that our the langauge of the modern english speaking world is impovrished by the demise of KJV. The KJV was the language of my youth. Struggling through the dense language of the KJV in Sunday School gave me a better grasp of English, improved my reading skills and helped me think. However, one of the tenets of evangelical reformed Christianity is that the scripture should be in the vernacular, in the language of the people. KJV English is no longer the language of the people. And yes, this is a discussion that mostly concerns those of us in the reformed protestant tradition. I read through the names of the translation committee and there is not a Roman Catholic or Orthodox scholar in the bunch.

[Tribune7]

I'd be happy if everybody just read a Bible.

[Jim Noble]

"It sounds like ecclesiastical and scholarly tyranny we shouldn't put up with," said Professor Lloyd Gaston, a Bible scholar at the Vancouver School of Theology.

Uh-oh.

Sounds like they left the abomination part in.

[lepton]

Hopefully we can agree He does NOT want the meaning to be "mis-translated"?

Part of the problem with that comment in this conversations, is that there is rarely a direct, exact correspondence between languages. Further, the language itself changes over time, with some passages in the KJV clearly carrying an opposite meaning to the original text, as those words are used today. Read as a whole, one can pick up the nuances and details of the KJV and understand it - as an essentially different language than we use today - but reading bits and pieces can lead to a trgically wrong impression, even further than the normal effects from not using context.

[AD from SpringBay]

Here's the problem. Because of the divisions of denominations, it is difficult to, even by reading to come to a sound conclusion. First there is one bias. Second there is bias from pastoral leaders. Then there is bias among our peers within the church. That is a ton of pressure to overcome to get to the truth.

To answer the question, "What does this mean?" is an entirely different thing from answering, "What does this mean to me?" We are constantly driven think in terms of a personal application for everything. Yet the Bible means something - and I (speaking as a believer) need to understand that I am clay. I am the one that needs forming. God's Word is already formed. We have to find out what it means.

And then, something every believer also decides, whether they realize it or not, is what role will non-Biblical sources play in their lives of faith? Do you take the Bible as the sole rule of faith, or do you take traditions, the writings of "church fathers", etc... to also play a part?

It is confusing, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't try.

[Scenic Sounds]

Yeah, why do we need more than one??

[Quix]

BALDERDASH! What idiocy.

THE MESSAGE by Eugene H Peterson--for my layman's perspective is the most authentic to the style, imagry, common vernacular etc. of the original Greek and Hebrew.

I love his Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah--Paul's letters--the prophets.

The NIV is great for a scholarly, sanitized, homogonized version.

But God's personality, feelings, attitudes, intents come across so much more intensely and alive in THE MESSAGE, for me.

Besides, I think God is moving THE CHURCH wholesale away from parochialism--not deeper into that sucking bog.

[fdcc]

I, unlike you, don't want authority as in telling me what to do, but rather leading and teaching me the proper way to have my faith.

We largely agree. The Church does lead and teach in the faith. As for the first part, what does the Church command its followers to do?

1. I must attend Mass on Sundays.

2. I must confess my sins at least once a year.

3. I must receive Holy Communion during the Easter season.

4. I must observe the Holy Days of Obligation. [i.e. attend Mass on these special days.]

5. I must observe the days of abstinence and fasting. [No meat on the Fridays of Lent and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.]

These are the precepts of the Church. They aren't onerous and they are for my own good.

Now, the Church has condemned many practices that the modern world has embraced. Since I believe that the Church is an authority on faith and morals, I obey.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Got me curious so I checked to see how many translations I have. The answer is eight if you don't count my Chronological Bible and Polyglot Bible. The Polyglot is being rebound and repaired. It is from the mid-1800's and was in rough shape.