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.
How interesting, I would like to investigate further this early Syriac version of the scriptures.
I don't have much in quantity as I've used my small budget for quality and not regretted it.
P66 and p75 “only begotten theos”, agrees.
No, I was just speaking in general, not about this particular verse.
I taught the Bible as Literature for a number of years, and I used the Oxford edition of the RSV, which had numerous footnotes, including comments by the Church Fathers.
Then, regretably, that went out of print, and Oxford substituted the NRSV. Thankfully, Ignatius Press came out with a Catholic version of the RSV, and I used that. An excellent choice, although regretably lacking all those old Oxford footnotes.
Thanks. I’ll look when I have a little time to do it right.
The other omissions I have seen in some poorer translations omit the word "blood" several times in critical Scriptures; what are we to suppose to think - that we are saved WITHOUT blood!!! Preposterous - God forbid!!!
I don't have that book but i do have and have read Wallace's ‘Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament’ and Metzger’s commentary on the Greek New Testament. Both quite informative.
From the appendix...
...very generally admitted to be the oldest version that has come down to us, of the New Testament in any language.
I do not have a first edition, my copy is by Carters, a second edition from 1879.
It is plain, but in a way kind of floral.
Here is the Lords prayer:
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name:
Thy kingdom come: Thy will be done; as in heaven, so on earth:
Give us our needful bread, this day:
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors:
And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.
=======================================================
I was not remotely suggesting discussing John 1:1 on this thread, but for you to research that which you purport to be some sort of authority on.
Are you a JW perchance?
I’ve not purported to be any sort of authority but I am familiar with the sources I use. That why I use them.
If you wish to make a point feel free to do so. But do try to be specific if you will, please.
As for myself I never discuss anything, not age, location, nothing about myself personally. Never have and won’t start now.
Any serious discussion related to the New World Translation amongst anyone knowledgeable is a discussion discrediting it whole cloth.
The New World Translation is heretical, therefore anyone giving it any credibility is also heretical.
Comparing it to other translations and defending it like you have here is ridiculous and exposes you as someone not to be taken seriously at the least, or someone with an agenda (ie JW)
Is my point specific enough?
I will give your opinions all the attention they deserve.
When in doubt, I head to the original languages.
Always a good idea and it’s been easier to do so by the publication of facsimiles of the major manuscripts and translations.
My translation from the Greek:
“No one has ever seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the Father’s bosom has made Him known.”
I deliberately left out commas that commonly separate the phrase “who is in the Father’s bosom” because they are not in the manuscript. The Greek word theos (God) is clearly used after “begotten” - any translation that uses “Son” is an example of a translater who functions as an interpreter.
The end result is something that is theologically, historically and contextually correct - but not textually correct. My preference is to have a direct translation, with difficulties explained in the margins. For example, if a translator changed it to “Son” because of a fear of modalism (God as one person acting out three roles) or polytheism (more than one God), those concerns should be noted in the footnotes, with cross-references to other verses that help explain historic Christianity, which teaches that there is one God revealed in three persons.
Yes, I too would prefer explanations, interpretations and such be in notes.
And thanks for your comments.
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.