Lothar wrote:It struck me as a strangely misguided appeal to authority, as if one translator's opinion on that one point trumped all others, and a different translator's opinion on a different point trumped all others, and so on. Your earlier mention of TEV was just the latest example of what seems to me like the same argument technique (which is one I find unpersuasive.)
I began my posts regarding translations because Drakona had made this inaccurate and potentially misleading statement, “All other translations have 'Spirit of God.'”
They do not. And I used the TEV as my first example. The TEV (Today's English Version) was translated by the American Bible Society according to principles of translation set forth by Eugene Nida, who since 1946 had been the Executive Secretary of the ABS Translations Department. Nida called his theory of translation
Dynamic Equivalence. The TEV is what some translation theorists call a "Common Language" version - the level of language used by uneducated people and children. It was originally conceived as one which would be suitable for people who speak English as a second language, and was intended for use by field translators employed by the American Bible Society in Asia and Africa. (The Translator's New Testament by the British and Foreign Bible Society was created for this same purpose.)
The TEV went through an extensive scholarly review process, occupying nine years.
The New Testament portion of the Today's English Version (TEV), otherwise known as the Good News for Modern Man, was published in 1966. In 1973 the TEV whole Bible was published and the popularity of this translation has continued unabated. The TEV has become the most popular Bible text in Australia, according to the Australian Bible Society. A Gallup Poll in February 1991 showed that the Good News Bible is the most popular version of the Bible among British churchgoers.
One reason the TEV has enjoyed such tremendous growth is due to its broad ecumenical acceptance--acceptance which was given soon after its release. The Roman Catholic Church gave official approval as early as 1969. The Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest denomination, has also promoted the TEV widely. They commissioned the American Bible Society to publish an edition under the "Broadman Press" label and sold it through their bookstores and distributed it widely through Southern Baptist churches. Evangelist Billy Graham called it “an excellent translation” over nationwide television from his campaign in Anaheim, California. It was then distributed by the Grason Company of Minneapolis, the distributors of Billy Graham materials. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, one of the most conservative Lutheran bodies in the United States, has repeatedly commended the Good News Bible. Many other denominations and organizations have also praised it.
The Days Inns motel chain published a special edition of the TEV containing notes and supplementary materials by Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ. Copies have been placed in all of their rooms.
The ecumenical acceptance of the TEV has been unprecedented. This is due, not only to its “Common Language” presentation, but also to the high degree of fine scholarship that produced it.
And yet, the TEV was rejected by many Evangelical groups because they felt it did not properly portray the deity of Christ. The upwell of protest was so strong the American Bible Society was forced to make changes. The result is the CEV, the Contemporary English Version, which the ABS says is the replacement for the TEV. The level of scholarship behind the TEV is outstanding, and yet a theological difference forced the ABS to make changes.
This is an example of how biased opinion can overshadow truth; how translations based on fine scholarship can be rejected due to theological differences, and how those differences can actually result in alterations to text based on no solid ancient evidence, grammatical or otherwise.
But this is all mute for a true scholar. True scholars don't need translations, they read the original languages and do the translating for themselves. It is a benefit, however, to quote from different translations for a few reasons:
1.To demonstrate the variety of translations possible.
2.To demonstrate that a translation is not unique to one translator.
Knowing the background for each translation also helps to understand the translation.
One example is the CEV. The evangelical protest against the TEV was so overwhelming, the revisors went a bit too far when “correcting” the text to appease the protestors.
Example: John 1:1
“Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.” TEV
“In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.” CEV.
The TEV's
“was the same as God” is much closer and more honest to the Greek than the CEV's
“was truly God,” but the goal of the CEV was to appease the protestors - it fits better with their theology.
You really need to pay attention. When I was younger I was not only a disciple(student) of Christ, I was also a Bible collector. As I said in my earlier post, some of the translations in my collection I rarely used (which is why I no longer have them), and some I used quite often. Today I refer to these Bibles most often:
NIV, TEV, NASB, AT (An American Translation, by Smith and Goodspeed), NEB, and NWT. This collection presents translation from a variety of different perspectives, all of which have proven scholarship behind them.
I also refer to these New Testament translations:
The New Testament Letters, by JWC Wand
The Translator's New Testament, by The British and Foreign Bible Society
The New Testament, a New Translation in Plain English, by Charles Kingsley Williams
The remaining translations on my shelves tend to gather more dust than those mentioned above.
Here is a comparison of the three texts discussed in my earlier post:
Genesis 1:2
NIV: “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
NEB: “and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.” footnote: “Wind: in non-Hebrew epics, the wind-god was the creator. Here, however, sea and wind are portrayed as creations, subject to God.”
CEV: But the Spirit of God was moving over the water.” footnote: “the Spirit of God: Or “a mighty wind.”
TEV: “and the power of God was moving over the water.” footnote: “the power of God; or the spirit of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind.”
NASB: “and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”
NWT: “and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” footnote: ”and . . .active force (spirit).” Heb.,we
ruach. Besides being translated “spirit,” ru'ach is also translated “wind” and by other words that denote an invisible active force. See 3:8 ftn “Breezy part” 8:1 ftn.”
AT: “and a tempestuous wind raging over the surface of the waters.”
Acts 1:8
NIV: “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.”
NEB: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.”
CEV: “But the Holy Spirit will come upon you and give you power.”
TEV: “But when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, you will be filled with power.”
NASB: “but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.”
NWT: “but you will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you.”
AT: “but you will be given power when the holy Spirit comes upon you.”
Zechariah: 4:6
NIV: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.”
NEB: “Neither by force of arms nor by brute strength, but by my spirit! Says he LORD of Hosts.”
CEV: “I am the LORD All-Powerful. So don't depend on your own power or strength, but on my Spirit.”
TEV: “You will succeed, not by military might or by your own strength, but by my spirit.”
NASB: “'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.”
NWT: “'Not by a military force, nor by power, but by my spirit.' Jehovah of armies has said.”
AT: “'Not by arms, nor by force, but by my spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.”
It should be noted that in these last examples from Zechariah, the NWT is the only one that has restored the Divine Name to it's rightful place in the text. This is also done by the ASV, the Jerusalem Bible, J.N. Darby, Rotherham, and Young.
Regarding your complaints about JW books - Maybe you should write the publisher?
