Skip to comments.
Why Does My Bible Read That Way?
`/23/2012
| Count-your -change
Posted on 01/23/2012 3:27:12 PM PST by count-your-change
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: Col Freeper
21
posted on
01/23/2012 4:59:02 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
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.
22
posted on
01/23/2012 5:00:09 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Slump Tester
Gosh, if you don’t read the latin bible, you aint nuthin.
To: count-your-change
Why would you ever quote the New World Translation?
You discredit yourself.
24
posted on
01/23/2012 5:06:37 PM PST
by
Manic_Episode
(Politics is fake. I think it's owned by Vince Mcmahon)
To: Cicero
I also like the Revised Standard Version, but it has largely been replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, another politically correct mistranslation like most of the rest.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.)
25
posted on
01/23/2012 5:12:39 PM PST
by
Lee N. Field
("Bad eschatology drives out good.")
To: Cicero
Usually the RSV is better than the NAB, but not in this case.
26
posted on
01/23/2012 5:25:37 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Slump Tester
I dont remember the exact verse, but theres also one where the King James says shall be born of a virgin, and the other ones say born of a young woman, or something like that. Thats enough reason for me to stick with the King James! 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.
27
posted on
01/23/2012 5:26:25 PM PST
by
LowOiL
("Abomination" sure sounds like "ObamaNation" to me.)
To: Cicero
I appreciate that the NAB has dropped some spurious translating but in other places really falls down as here in John 1:18 and Act, chapter two when Peter quotes Ps.16:10.
The New Revised Standard Version I have comes with the interlinear attached so I find that useful.
28
posted on
01/23/2012 5:32:38 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: Manic_Episode
Discredit myself? Why? How? It does a better job at rendering this verse than many other translations.
29
posted on
01/23/2012 5:38:11 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
Why the difference in versions
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.
30
posted on
01/23/2012 5:40:05 PM PST
by
LowOiL
("Abomination" sure sounds like "ObamaNation" to me.)
To: count-your-change
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."
Sorry, the New World isn't a translation. This is a paid for hire job that was, in the process, mangled to cut out or change things that the Russellites don't find convenient to their doctrine.
As far as those variations in John 1:8 go, there are many different manuscripts. There are variations in the Greek. Some have one phrase, some have the other, some have a conflation of both. If there's no clear way (short of the fideistic declaration that the defective compilation known as the Textus Receptus is the only true Greek apparatus, which is laughable), the best that can be done is to offer all the variations for the reader to see. If you think that the differences in the translation between versions (that used different Greek texts) is because the translators couldn't figure out what the Greek was saying, then you need to do a bit of study on the matter. See Bruce Metzger's latest edition (4th) of The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford University Press, 2005.
31
posted on
01/23/2012 5:50:40 PM PST
by
aruanan
To: LowOiL
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.
32
posted on
01/23/2012 6:07:19 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change
"Discredit myself? Why? How? It does a better job at rendering this verse than many other translations." =================================================
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
33
posted on
01/23/2012 6:12:03 PM PST
by
Manic_Episode
(Politics is fake. I think it's owned by Vince Mcmahon)
To: Manic_Episode
Forgot the h in Jehovahs.
34
posted on
01/23/2012 6:13:54 PM PST
by
Manic_Episode
(Politics is fake. I think it's owned by Vince Mcmahon)
To: count-your-change
“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.
35
posted on
01/23/2012 6:16:24 PM PST
by
djf
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
To: Manic_Episode
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...
36
posted on
01/23/2012 6:19:43 PM PST
by
boys3
To: count-your-change
My best advice would be to cross-reference the passage in question.
Though the wording may vary from different editions/prints you can usually figure out what you want to know that way.
Also, a concordance is pretty indispensable for self study.
37
posted on
01/23/2012 6:23:34 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: boys3
Welcome to Free Republic.
38
posted on
01/23/2012 6:23:37 PM PST
by
Manic_Episode
(Politics is fake. I think it's owned by Vince Mcmahon)
To: djf
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...
39
posted on
01/23/2012 6:27:55 PM PST
by
djf
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
To: Manic_Episode
First of all the thread is not about John 1:1, that should have a thread to itself.
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.
40
posted on
01/23/2012 6:31:01 PM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson