Something I don't understand...

I just like the RSV the best. It has its flaws. The version I have is released by Ignatius press and has some differences with the Protestant Version. It was slo updated again in 2006, is sanctioned by the Holy See and is used by Pope Benedict XVI's translated works. I like the RSV (Catholic) for various reasons. I have no doubt that there may be a Protestant version that is better, but it is an incomplete text IMO

If you like the KJV, I might suggest the Douay-Rheims (or Douay-Challoner) version which is an early Catholic english translation that uses similar language as the KJV.

I've also read the NAS, which I didn't have any major problems with at the time.

It really depends on what you want to do. If you want an easy to understand version, go for something like an NIV/TNIV which is a more dynamic translation. I prefer a more literal translation mainly because I enjoy close readings of the text and a literal translation will let me "read into the Greek" better without knowing Greek.

I recommend going to Wikipedia and reading about the different translations and their critcisms, reading selections, and picking the one you like best. And translation is in a way an interpretation so really I like having a few kicking around.

 

I think this was in reponse to your statement and mine relating to the dichotomy of the Romans example I gave. I don't have this romantic idea in my mind that the Bible as we have it in English is "perfect" in the sense that it is totally easy to read along and understand and perfectly clear on all issues (for example, Paul says non are righteous, but Elizabeth, cousin of Mary, is descrbed as righteous. wtf?

It reveals perfect Truths, through the imperfect words and brains of humanity.

I don't think any Christian was saying that you can believe whatever you want simply because the bible is unreliable. I guess my problems with sola scriptura is that it isn't biblical itself. Yes, if a cleric is saying something that is also unbiblical, we must look upon it with suspicion, but Sacred tradition ios a vital part of our understanding and interpretation of Scripture.

This was probably unfair of me to jump on you over the NWT and JW doctrine. It hasnever really been anything explicit, but it is implied so much in your posts I couldn't keep it in any longer.

this intrigued me. How are "flawed translations" useful?

Again, this perplexes me. I again, assume you believe that the NWT is the best translation we've got, so why would, or how could there be truth in the others if, as you say in another post, there are over 6000 (I am assuming this is a "made up" number to prove a point) injustices done to the Scripture.

I guess my biggest problem with the charge of following clergy, your own interpretation, or others is that I could make the charge right back on you. for example, the Bible's rebukes against ingesting blood are always in the context of eating blood. Does a transfusion count as eating any more than a kidney transplant counts as eating a kidney? (again, I write this under the assumption that you are an orthodox JW, which I don't think you've ever said...possibly due to the stigma, which would lead to a whole other issue like Peter denying Christ). But I digress.

Do JW's follow kosher blood dietary laws (draining the meat)? That is really interesting to me. If they don't, what does that mean? How much blood contitutes blood? One red blood cell, some plasma, what. The Bible itself cannot answer this, but we must rely on tradition and clerics (who have studied) mainly as well as Church Tradition.

OWB, I'd be really interested if you'd share your personal beliefs with me, maybe via PM under a gentlemenly agreement of confidentiality.

 

I know you didn’t ask me and Ukr-Cdn did a good job with it but I’d like to touch on a few thing he didn’t.

Like Ukr-Cdn said; “It really depends on what you want to do”.

If you have Bible study as a goal, a good interlinear version that has the greek text and a word for word English translation above it, can be very informative.

Also I would recommend that you get a translation and not a paraphrase, although a paraphrase can be fun to read, they generally lack the nuances that a translation has and is often flavored with the doctrines of the person who paraphrased it to the point of being very unreliable.

Also I find that “The Amplified Bible” can be very interesting and helpful.

Like I’ve said; the truth can be found in any translation of the Bible and some people like the archaic language of the KJV or RSV and find it to be very poetic but most because of that very language find them difficult to understand. So I would recommend that you get one of the newer modern language translations, although if you grew up with say the KJV you may miss some of the poetic language but once you get use to it, I think you’ll enjoy that a newer modern language translation is much easier to understand.

 

I admit to "liking" the archaic language, the poetry of the KJV. So, I know I'll always return to reading it for it's beauty.
However, I am interested in the accuracy of translation - and I'm able to figure out what a text is trying to say (so far anyway ), in that I'm not necessarily interested in an "easy to understand" version.
In your 3rd paragraph, OWB, THAT is what I'm interested in - "a good interlinear version that has Greek text and a word for word English translation above it". Which version is this? Surely here in Podunk USA in the midst of the Bible Belt, I should be able to find it.

 

Ukr-Cdn, thank you so much for your response.
I somehow manage to always forget about Wikipedia and how much this resource can tell me.
I find myself most curious as to the difference between the biblical literature/text for Catholics and Protestants. I didn't realize there was much difference (though I probably should have, huh?). I have read the Apocrypha and found myself moved by it's power. Isn't this work accepted by Catholocism?
Also, I would rather give a try at reading a RSV for Catholics since it sounds like there is more "in" it, right? Again, I really didn't know there would be one version for Catholics and one for Protestants.
I appreciate the enlightenment.

 

I don’t think I ever said that understanding the Bible completely could be done without study but I do believe that most of the basic principles can be found without a lot of struggle.

As for the example you give that can be resolved but it’s really kind of a side point, unless you want to discuss it.

I wish you had heard that as many times as I have. I even thought about going back to all the threads that I’ve posted in and quoting them for you so you could see what I mean. I’ve found that most “Christians” when asked about what they believe have at best a superficial grasp on what they believe and if pressed by showing them a scripture that seems to contradict what they believe, I think you would be surprised how often they will say well I don’t really believe the Bible anyway.

As for Sacred tradition; Jesus didn’t seem to think much of traditions, Sacred or otherwise, if they went against God’s word.

No, not unfair at all. But implied is all you’ll find. I’m not here to proselytize or convert anybody but to discuss “doctrine” in the light of what the Bible says and there will be nothing explicit, although there are some “doctrines” I will espouse and defend, such my belief that the Bible is the word of God.

Yes, I believe that the NWT is one of the best and one of the reasons I feel that way is that doesn’t make the mistake of mistranslating, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tetragrammaton over 6000 times (not a made up number) by using the words LORD or GOD etc. and so the KJV and the RVS have kind of given the NWT a big head start in being accurate, even if you throw in the 200 times or so that the NWT puts God’s in the Christian Greek scriptures, if you consider those to be in error. And that’s not even talking about how the translators tried very hard to be doctrinally neutral with the NWT, which can not be said for a translation like the KJV which has added spurious scriptures to try and prove the trinity.

As for; how could there be truth in the others (translations) if, as you say in another post, there are over 6000…injustices done to the Scripture?
No matter how corrupted a translation may be God will not allow the truth to be hidden, for hundreds of years Christians have been stuck with the KJV and yet were able to get the truth out of it and use it to preach the truth to others.

This also answers the question of how “flawed translations” are useful; for some that use a Bible translation like the KJV and feel as some do, who feel that the KJV is not a translation at all but the way God delivered the Bible to mankind. It is useful to show them the truth in their own Bible.

 

I don't think I've ever heard the RSV refered to as archaic.

But I agree with you. If you want something to study the text as a text, you want a good interlinear translation (formal equivilence) and not a paraphrase.

 

The Eastern Orthodox Church uses more books as well. Some of the Asian and African Churches use more too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon

I personally love the Apocrypha, partially because I am Catholic and so I do see it as inspired and revelation. The common Apocrypha (or deuterocanonical as we properly call them) are accepted by Cahtolics, were used in the LXX by the NT writers, and accepted until 1500's when Protestants removed them. Some Protestants will include the deuterocanonical books between the OT and NT.

 

I too confess to liking the archaic language, the poetry of the KJV. When I think of the 23 Psalm it’s in the language of the KJV.

I hope I didn’t infer that a easy to understand modern language translation is inaccurate, most are considered more accurate than the KJV but like I said if you want accuracy stay away from paraphrase Bibles because they are notoriously inaccurate.

The interlinear I’m most familiar with is the “The Emphatic Diaglott” and it is just the Christian Greek Scriptures but I’ve seen some Hebrew Scriptures versions as well.

I did a quick search on the internet and up popped several software interlinear versions which I’m not familiar with but you might check it out.

 

Re: Mary and Elizabeth
Yeah, it was just a side point. We don't have to discuss it further really.

Re: Tradition
There are a number of passages that indicate where sacred tradition is relevent and good for instruction. The Torah was an oral tradition for hundreds of years before being written down. But again, like you said, I am not really here to convert anyone. I will clear up misunderstandings, but I am not trying to win souls for the FishEaters

Re: 6000 Flaws
Oh, I see what you mean. You disapprove of the YHWH being translated as LORD or GOD or G-D. I agree with you sentiment, but remember, we don't really know how it is pronounced, so any translation (Yahweh or Jehovah) could be a mistranslation of the holy name, and therefore profaning God. the tradition of inserting LORD where YHWH is comes from the use in Hebrew of HaShem or Adonai instead of the name of God. LORD is used to differentiate from Elohim.

I guess insertions could be leveled on either side though. The Johnnanie Comma added to many NT transations is probably not original (we Catholics get around that with Holy Spirit revelation). The NWT has charges (not the John 1:1 one, which I agree could be the best redering) of comma and "other" insertion to imply a created son, rather than an eternal son.

I like your little dig on the KJOnly movement by the way.

 

Not the book itself but the language is a little more archaic than in some of what are considered the modern language translations.

 

When people start talking traditions, this scripture always pop to mind where Jesus says: In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? (Matthew 15:3)

Mostly I just started out defending the Bible but when “doctrines” that I consider to be false started making the Bible look bad, I started showing why I think those “doctrines” are false. So it looks like we’re in similar boats.

To me it’s just confusing to not at least put in YHWH, the Bible says that many are called lord and there are many called gods but there is only one YHWH , so using something like Yahweh or Jehovah where the Tetragrammaton is used, helps to clarify things.

You may have heard the argument that Jesus may have been pronounced in Bible times, Yeshua or possibly Yehoshua yet we do not hesitate to use the name Jesus, so why not Yahweh or Jehovah to translate YHWH?

As for the reason the pronunciation of YHWH was lost, it was because of the tradition or if you will superstition that the Jews had that one should never say the name of God in case you might accidently profane it and so when they were reading the scriptures, instead of saying God’s name they would say God or Lord and that tradition seems to have carried over into some translations of the Bible.

Punctuation in the Christian Greek Scriptures will always be a problem seeing as the writers of the Greek Scriptures did not use punctuation at that time.

Thanx but I really can’t take credit for it, that’s just another thing I was told when talking to people about the Bible and they actually believed it, so I couldn’t even laugh. I once asked a person if he knew what God’s name was and he told me; “Yahoo”, I liked to choked.

 

Now I want to thank everybody for giving me recommendations for finding the most accurate translation(s) of the bible and associated text...

to the point,
Sometimes, OWB, I think people simply interpret scripture differently as evidenced by our discussion in the Cain and Abel thread.
I still think I am right, and I'm pretty sure you think you are right. :cheers2:

Neither of us has "listened" to anybody else (I KNOW I sure haven't) and I don't think you or I will be denied entry through the pearly gates because of this "agreement to disagree". I guess my point is that people can read the same thing and disagree on these same things - but the Big Picture, the important doctrines we all should agree on.

People as a general rule want somebody to tell them what to think, and do for that matter (imo) but then I'm sorta cynical. I'm also thinking that applies in churches as well as everywhere else.

 

In case you were wondering I kind separated this off so we could discuss it in more depth.

Blood is a rather complex issue that even some JWs don’t fully understand and they study it quite a bit.

It’s not as simple as you make it sound with your statement does a “transfusion count as eating”. The question is more about how does God want you to view Blood? I had one JW raised a JW tell me that Blood was dirty and to him Blood was abhorrent, which to God is probably as bad most “Christians” apathetic view of Blood; what’s the big deal?

When you begin think about what God has ultimately used Blood for, you begin to see why it is something very special in God’s eyes. To God, Blood is Sacred and precious and all blood belongs to him and can not be used for any purpose unless God allows it.

So when we begin to think of what the Blood sacrifices and the uses of Blood in the Hebrew Scriptures pictured and ultimately what Jesus, God’s son, did for us; do you think that someone who calls himself a Christian should take the subject of Blood lightly? Perhaps a Christian should be a little more serious about looking into how God wants Blood handled, don’t you think?

To answer your second question; although Christians are not under the Mosaic dietary laws, JW do handle blood pretty much the way it is described there.

As to how much blood constitutes blood, Christians are for the most part not under “Christian” laws but are to live by Christian principles. That means that Christians are not to be Pharisaical about the matter and start splitting hairs and making laws about how much Blood is Blood but they are to show respect for God’s view of Blood and it’s that honest heartfelt respect that God is looking for not the hypocritical, I ate one less red blood cell than you, one up man ship that was the plague of the Jews of Jesus day. Because if a person has a honest heartfelt respect for blood in general that means he probably also has a honest heartfelt respect for what Jesus did for him as well.

 

Thanks!

 

Good points on the YHWH stuff (the Jesus/Yeshoua thing to be exact). Not only did they not want to profane it, bu they used a special pen to write it out. I still like the use of LORD, people just need to know what it means.

In terms of Greek Scripture, correct on the puctuation, but they also didn't separate words! imagineifenglishwerelikethattoo

Yikes

 

I know that you’re being nice and bowing out gracefully and I should let it go at that and just say have a nice day.

But I have to ask;
Who benefits from the thought that it’s ok to simply interpret scripture differently?
Do you think that God really wants us to believe that everyone having their own interpretation is a good thing?
Who do you think has a vested interest in wanting people to believe that he Bible has no correct interpretation?

You talk of the Big Picture, the trouble is the story of Adam and Eve is the Big Picture. People dismiss it; call it a myth, an allegory, an illustration and say it never happened and then move on to the "more" important things. The trouble is it is right there, in the story of Adam and Eve, where you find the key to understanding the entire Bible and no one even bothers to look!

Sorry, have a nice day,
OWB

 

In some Bibles they actually tell you that if the word is in all caps like this GOD or LORD that that is a replacement for the Tetragrammaton but most people don't even bother to read that and so just go around thinking that the Tetragrammaton is not even in the Bible.

As for the no puctuation and the run together words, now you do you know why I like my modern English translation so much.

 

I prefer my bible to use the name JEHOVAH, instead of LORD..The King James used to have it in a few spots, but now, have replaced it with LORD in the New King James Version. To me, that is not sanctifying God's name at all..by replacing it with a title..

 

I agree that Adam and Eve are the big Picture, but I think it is revealed differently. Why would modern evolutionary science overwhelmingly point towards a Creator who created through evolution? There are two separate accounts of Creation from two sources (You probably know of the J and P sources, right?). Two separate accounts of the Flood. These reveal Spiritual Truths, not historical and scientific. Why, not because they have multiple sources (like the Gospels), not because Science trumps scripture, but because modern science has allowed us to correct our interpretation of Scripture.

Message-Incident principle. Jesus said mustard seeds were the smallest to prove a point. God revealed to the Torah authors that Adam and Eve were created and sinned to prove another point. The Message is separate from the Incident.