Posted on 01/23/2012 3:27:12 PM PST by count-your-change
Why Does My Bible Read that Way?
This question may have come to mind while you were reading and particularly so if you read and compare different translations of the Bible.
The differences can be quite minor, word order and choice of words that carry much the same the thought or of a rather substantial nature that will affect our understanding of the Scriptures as a whole.
John 1:18 serves as a good example since much has been written about it with experts offering quite opposite opinions.
Here The New American Standard Version reads' "No one has seen God at any time, the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him".
The American Standard Version reads,
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
The New World Translation reads,
"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him."
The New American Bible;
"No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him."
The New Revised Standard Version,
"No one has ever seen God. It is God, the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known."
Some of the above have foot notes explaining that the most ancient manuscripts available , p66 and p75, from about 200 A.D. or before, support the reading, 'only begotten god/God.'
Part of the controversy that goes with translating John 1:18 arises from how one thinks of the Greek word, "monogenes" or only born, sole child.
However it's evident that other translators see a meaning in "monogenes" of "unique, one of a kind". The NIV reads,
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. "
Clearly the text used by the translators and the manuscripts it is based upon will determine or influence how your translation of the Bible reads.
Does it matter? "Only begotten God" or "only begotten Son"?
Certainly it should to a translator who is attempting to produce as accurate a translation as possible.
And reasonably it would to the student of the Scriptures who believes his studies will lead to a better understanding of his Creator, gaining that 'accurate knowledge and full discernment' that marks the spiritually mature.
Thanks!
I wasn’t thinking of this verse in particular. I just find the NAB kind of clunky, and it suffers from the political correctness of most recent translations.
A group of Protestants and Catholics got together and developed the Revised Standard Version, and as I said, I like that one. It has footnotes where Protestants and Catholics disagree about an occasional verse. And it contains the Apocryphal books in the Catholic version, duly noting that Protestants do not consider them to be formally part of the Bible. The New Revised Standard Version is a big step in the wrong direction, regretably.
Gosh, if you don’t read the latin bible, you aint nuthin.
You discredit yourself.
I also like the Revised Standard Version, but it has largely been replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, another politically correct mistranslation like most of the rest.
You might want to take a look at the English Standard Version. It's a recent and conservative revision of the RSV. I think it reads well. (Free on Kindle.)
Usually the RSV is better than the NAB, but not in this case.
King James gets it wrong at places too. Thou shall not kill... instead of "Thou shall not murder"...
It is not plausible that kill would be correct when just a few verses further down it explains reasons to enforce the death penalty.
Discredit myself? Why? How? It does a better job at rendering this verse than many other translations.
MONEY...
It costs a pretty penny to have different versions translated. Copyright laws (and Bible sales are big business) don't allow you to word things exactly the same. So thus with each competing release, phrasing becomes shuffled.
Other factors include readability and how political correct the target audience version is intended to attract. Used to be the target audience was pretty conservative, but lately you have Bible lite liberal versions popping up.
Finally there is the devil at work.... He knows when you add to the truth you actually subtract from it. As you pointed out, the virgin birth is neglected from mention in one translation. That can only be for the devils pleasure.
I didn’t comment on the use of “virgin” to translate “maiden” although I don’t see any reason not to do so.
You’re probably recalling another poster. No problem.
=================================================
That is debatable but I am speaking of the translation itself, not the verse.
If you didn't already know it is the Jehovas Witness own version of "the bible".
If you are not a JW than perhaps you have just not done your homework and some research is in order.
Start with John 1:1
“No man hath ever seen God; the only begotten God, he who is in the bosom of his father,he hath declared [Him].”
From the 1858 Translation of the Syriac (Peshito) New Testament by James Murdock, which was written in the original Aramaic. One of the earliest extant copies of the New Testament, estimates range from 90-110 AD.
Agreed! The New World translation is the JW bible. Serious doctrinal flaws to say the least. Basically created to try and cover over the even more serious issues with their beliefs. Run, don’t walk...
Oooppps...
Re-reading the appendix doesn’t give any numbers, per se.
But it makes strong argument that the version can be traced back to the latter part of the first century or at its latest, the early part of the second century.
So what that means in years, I’m not sure...
Then Catholics have “their own version”, the NAB, and the United Bible Society has “their own version” and someone has the Peshitta and so forth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.