DescentBB

Anyone find it interesting that almost every time someone tries to \"retranslate\" the \"Bible\" or a \"new edition\" comes out, a new Christian denomination is created...

This is akin to Luther's \"translation\" of the Bible in order to support his beliefs and eventually the protestant movement/reformation.

If everyone agreed on a \"root\"/\"standard\" \"version\"/\"translation\" of the \"Bible\", most likely the original manuscripts, then it is conceivably possible that the various versions of Christianity would cease to exist.

Which one(s) would still be around?

ccb056 wrote:If everyone agreed on ...

I think this is at the heart of the matter, as it is in every other area of human intercourse.

There is a root standard of the bible. Its the original version in the original language. Wether a copy of the bible in such a form still exists or not is another debate entirely.

ccb056 wrote:Anyone find it interesting that almost every time someone tries to "retranslate" the "Bible" or a "new edition" comes out, a new Christian denomination is created...

Hmm? I'm pretty sure that isn't true. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a denomination that does have a characteristic translation. I guess Jehovah's Witnesses use NWT, and Mormons require KJV, but those groups are hardly denominations.

The most popular Bible translations these days are NIV, NAS, and KJV -- from the 1960's, 1900's, and 1600's, respectively. You'll see them used pretty much across all denominations, together with a smattering of less popular translations (I like NET, for example, which nobody's ever heard of). It's personal preference and denominational culture, not academic necessity. Some folks like churches that "Sing the old hymns and read the KJV!" while others want nothing but the latest and most literal scholarship.

In general, the divides between denominations are historical in nature. You can usually trace a denomination back to a founder or historical event that got it started. In general, denominations start when someone decides they want to reform the church, preaches some doctrines they think are right, and folks follow them. It doesn't really have much to do with new translations.

Denominations are separated by doctrinal issues, too, but even these are almost always based on interpretation of the text, rather than dispute about what the text actually says. Lutherans and Baptists argue, for example, over whether infant baptism is valid and right--and these arguments usually turn on broad examples and analogies. It isn't like the Lutherans are using a Bible that says, "Thou shalt baptize babies" and the Baptists are using one that says, "Thou shalt wait until adulthood to get baptized". No, their Bibles say the same things--they just disagree on what they mean.

In general, Christians use some very different Bible translations pretty much interchangeably. Most folks, when following along as their pastor reads, find they aren't reading the same words as him. It's entirely natural, and nobody really thinks much of it--roughly like viewing a web page through IE or Firefox or Opera or what have you. It says pretty much the same thing.

In fact, this is one of the fundamental things that separates Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholics from Protestant denominations like Baptists and Methodists and Mennonites and Pentecostals: they have separate, distinctive scriptures and living prophets that explicitly give their unique doctrines. When I am arguing with a Mormon, he believes in the Book of Mormon and the sayings of the modern prophet; I don't. We aren't working from the same book, so the argument generally turns on things like, "Is the Book of Mormon true?". Likewise, Catholics rely on a tradition, a set of scriptures, and a Pope that I don't hold infallible. Debating with them usually comes back to, "Well, what value does tradition hold?" This gives us a much more divergent set of beliefs than mere Protestant denominations hold. I can study with, worship with, (heck, marry!) a Mennonite and not really notice any fundamental differences. And when we do debate, it comes down to, "Here's what I think John 15:6 means..." "Oh really? I think it means this instead..." "No, that doesn't make sense in light of Phil. 2:2" "Sure it does..." But because we all work from the same book and argue over interpretaion, we really are pretty much all on the same page when it comes to things the book is totally clear on.

For this reason, your comment will strike most Evangelical Christians as odd. Between Christian denominations, the text already is common--it is the interpretation that is constantly in dispute. It's very unlikely that adopting a common translation would resolve any of the existing debates.

Avder wrote:There is a root standard of the bible. Its the original version in the original language. Wether a copy of the bible in such a form still exists or not is another debate entirely.

There are some 20,000 texts that are used to translate the scriptures. There are something like 5 different languages involved as well.

I think that it would be easier to choose which manuscript reflects the original if there were only one.

Duper wrote:There are some 20,000 texts that are used to translate the scriptures. There are something like 5 different languages involved as well.

Boy, and you guys wonder why people are skeptical. Couldn't something have been lost in the translation?? Maybe the part where it says "THIS IS ALL MADE UP"?

This topic has \"potential\".

Can anybody summarize the major differences between the bibles used by different groups? I'm just looking for the nitty gritty details. Not the stuff like \"Well, it supports their doctrine, etc..\".

Something else I also thought of, and that's the monetary gain from publishing a new revision of the bible. I can easily see a company or group claiming to have a more \"easy to read\" bible for marketing reasons, and thus making a quick profit.

Zuruck wrote:

Duper wrote:There are some 20,000 texts that are used to translate the scriptures. There are something like 5 different languages involved as well.

Boy, and you guys wonder why people are skeptical. Couldn't something have been lost in the translation?? Maybe the part where it says "THIS IS ALL MADE UP"?

I expect that from you Zuruck. *shrug*

In other news, I think that Drakona hit it right on the head.

One of the major \"problems\" of a set text being used over many years (read centuries) is that while the text basically doesn't change, language does. Because languages change over time, the nuaces of a passage can become altered as word meanings change as culture changes around us. These days, new translations usually fall into 1 of 2 types. Either a very literal translation of the oldest texts or an attempt to present the meaning of the texts in the most up to date language.

For example, a guy here in australia has not translated but paraphrased major gospel stories into very australian idiomatic text, The average aussie would understand the concepts portrayed in the idiom perfectly, where I think most americans would be scratching their heads in bewilderment.

The NIV translation was checked by religious scholars from all the major doctrines and by jewish scholars as well in an attempt to get the best compromise between literal and meaning. Also the oldest known manuscripts and hostorical documents that support dates, times, kings, empires, etc were always referred back to. I know many people who have one of each type of version and refer back and forth in order to get the most out of the passage under discussion.

AN interesting note is that the Koran is only written and read in arabic still in order to try and stop translational errors from creeping in.

Weyrman wrote:One of the major "problems" of a set text being used over many years (read centuries) is that while the text basically doesn't change, language does.

You are correct, language changes. But the text has also changed. The years that have passed since the Authorized Version of 1611 (the King James Bible), have resulted in major advances in scholarship due mainly to the discovery of ancient manuscripts not available in the 16th century.

The Dictionary of the Bible, Mackenzie,1965: "The classical beauty of the AV did not conceal its defects, some of which were due to its 16th-century scholarship, others to simple misunderstanding of the original texts. The need of a revision was rendered acute by the recognition in 19th-century scholarship that the Greek text of the NT at the base of the AV was more remote from the original than the text of other manuscripts."

Anyone acutely interested in the history of the English translations of the Bible should read F.F. Bruce's book, A History of the Bible in English, and Metzger's, The Text of the New Testament.

The United Bible Society's Greek New Testament is updated on a regular basis, and while it's true that major revisions have become fewer, their are enough passages that are still in question, and enough new manuscripts continuously being examined, that the revisions to this text are quite benifical to scholarship.

Drakona wrote:In fact, this is one of the fundamental things that separates Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholics from Protestant denominations like Baptists and Methodists and Mennonites and Pentecostals: they have separate, distinctive scriptures and living prophets that explicitly give their unique doctrines.

I agree with the 'living prophets" startement regarding Mormans, and perhaps Catholics (because of the Pope) but not JW's. If you really investigate this group you will find this not to be the case. Yes they did translate the bible, and yes they did it with a bias, but anyone who translates the Bible does it with a bias. This is evidant throught the history of english translation.

The American revisors of the AV state quite explicitly in the forward to the American Standard Version of 1901 why they made their changes, the most obvious being the restoring of the Divine Name "Jehovah" into the Hebrew text. The committe who produced the Revised Standard Version of 1952 state quite clearly why they decided to take the Divine Name out again. This back and forth revision is due to bias, not necessarily honest scholarship.

Today translations have been prodcued that attempt to introduce modern policital correctness into the text. While the translators may be sincerely trying to improve the text, they are actually corrupting it due to bias.

At one time, when I was younger and had more energy, I had 180 different english translations. Some were of the complete Bible, some of just the OT and some of just the NT, some quite rare, and some very common. Some I rarely used, and some I used quite often. My preferences were always determined by the honesty, and integrity of the scholarship behind the translation. No translation is perfect, but many translations are quite benefical in the quest to acquire a well-rounded understanding of what the original writers intended. Sometimes jewels can be found in the most unexpected places.

One pleasant suprise was to find this translation of Matthew 11:12:

"But from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it."

This, more than any other translation, brings out the full meaning of the greek, and demonstrates a powerful understanding of that ancient, and quite complex, language. This was taken from the New World Translation, by the aforementioned JW's. While their translation is not perfect, it does contain jewels like this one - jewels that should not be discarded because of bias and prejudice; just as valuable demonstrations of fine scholarship found in other translations should not be ignored.

Hmm. It could be that my memory of Jehovah's Witness beliefs is less than perfect. It has been quite a while since I've had reason to learn about them. I thought they had some infallible prophet like the Mormons do, and I thought for sure I'd heard folks talking about Awake! as though it were supposed to be infallible. But I could be mixing up the two groups.

I know it's offensive (in a lot of ways) to throw Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholics all in one basket. My point was only that these are groups with different sources of authority than me, so their beliefs diverge from mine more than the beliefs of protestant denominations do. That is, they're examples of the phenomenon noted by the original post: different scriptures, different beliefs. Though I suppose with the Mormons and Catholics I'm really thinking of things like the Apochrypha, not differing translations. I understand the Mormons uniformly use KJV, but I would guess that to be because it uses the same superficial language as the Book of Mormon. It's not from the KJV that they draw their distinctive beliefs.

I was actually making the opposite point ccb was, though. Out of all of Christendom, those are the few cases I could come up with offhand where distinctive scriptures defined distinctive beliefs. Of the thousands of protestant denominations--Methodists, Wesleyans, Baptists, Independant Bible Churches, and so forth--we share a common text, and don't really have many quibbles about translation. Except in a few special cases, the quibbles are about interpretation.

It's telling that two of my three examples are groups commonly regaurded as cults: within Protestant Christendom, doctrinally unique translations are unheard of. I don't mean that folks don't translate with their biases--they do--I mean that nobody says, \"This is the Wesleyan translation--good Wesleyans use this!\", and certainly nobody says, \"This translation is the right one!\" (Well, except a few KJV-onlyists. But they're the exception that proves the rule.) Quite the opposite, Evangelicals are keenly suspicious of any modern who claims to speak for God or any translation touted as perfect or right. We are so used to a proliferation of opinions that authority goes completely against our grain.

As an example, the church I grew up in had a rule that votes by the board of elders has to be unanimous to pass--they felt that if God was speaking to all of them, they should all be hearing the same thing. This seemed sensible enough to me as a procedural thing, but over time some of them subtly changed the belief: they began to believe that if a vote was unanimous, God had spoken. Eventually the church was run by a three elders who believed that, when speaking unanimously, they spoke for God.

That tripped everyone's \"heretically wrong\" alarms. The elders had a scripture in Acts they used to back up their belief, but common members of the church felt completely free to look it up and disagree with their interpretation.

I think it's fair to say that Evangelicals uniformly feel that unless someone is accurately predicting far-future events and walking on water, they have absolutely no right to claim to speak for God, and their opinions are as fallible as those of any layman in the pews.

Drakona wrote:I think it's fair to say that Evangelicals uniformly feel that unless someone is accurately predicting far-future events and walking on water, they have absolutely no right to claim to speak for God, and their opinions are as fallible as those of any layman in the pews.

I agree, absolutely.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:This topic has "potential".

Can anybody summarize the major differences between the bibles used by different groups? I'm just looking for the nitty gritty details. Not the stuff like "Well, it supports their doctrine, etc..".

Not sure I can help you with the "used by different groups" part, but I can help you with the differences between translations.

The biggest tradeoff in translation is between literal equivalence and functional equivalence--do you translate the words or what the words mean. Also known as "word for word" translation vs. "phrase for phrase" (and with the advent of things like The Message, we also have "paragraph for paragraph" translations). An example will help. Consider Genesis 1:1 -

Beginning at the literal end of the spectrum, the translation in my interliner simply writes the English equivalent under each Hebrew word, resulting in the following:

in the beginning created God the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and empty and darkness on face of the deep and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters

Such a translation is really only useful if you're looking to translate individual Hebrew words. It's extremely accurate, but impossible to read.

New American Standard (or NAS), is the next step toward dynamic translation. NAS is on the literal end of readable translations, and is one of the more common ones you'll see. It renders the same passage like this:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

This is saying essentially the same thing as the literal translation, but has been cleaned up a little for English style. It's still pretty wooden, though--in the New Testament especially, NAS has been criticized as being "Greek dressed up as English". It definitely contains some tortured phrases. I came across a good example while studying with Lothar: A guard who is asked to do something that could cause his execution exclaims in Daniel 1:10 (in NAS), "Then you would make me forfeit my head to the king." Huh? Try it again in NIV: "The king would then have my head because of you."

Speaking of NIV, that's our next stop on the dynamic translation spectrum. NIV emphasizes "phrase for phrase" translation. Here's Genesis 1:1-2 in NIV:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NIV recasts the second sentance a bit so that things flow better, but it's saying the same things as the others.

Finally, Living Bible is more of a paraphrase than a direct translation. It puts Genesis 1:1-2 like this:

When God began creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was at first a shapeless, chaotic mass, with the Spirit of God brooding over the dark vapors.

The tradeoff is that as the text becomes more readable, we may sacrifice accuracy--that is, the more interpretation the translator does for you, the less you can do yourself.

Which style is best? It depends on what you're doing. If you're checking translation work, the highly literal translation is appropriate. If you're wading through logical propositions in the new testament, something fairly literal is probably best, since individual words matter a lot. If you're just reading narrative, something like NIV or even Living Bible is fine--stories come across best in dynamic translations.

There are a couple other points to consider. One is translator bias. Sometimes translators will interject their own beliefs or interpretations in how the translation is put together. A good example is NWT on Genesis 1:1-2

In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

This is fairly dynamic, as the spectrum goes, but notice the bolded phrase. "God's active force"? Every other translation has "Spirit of God". What's going on here? The answer is to be found, not in any nuance of the original language (ruach -- the Hebrew word -- very simply means "spirit" or "breath"), but in distinctive JW beliefs. They believe that what the text calls "the Spirit of God" isn't a personal spirit, but an impersonal force. So they have translated it that way.

----

A couple other points to ponder. KJV is an old translation (full of Thees and Thous) which is optimized, not for static or dynamic equivalence, but for beauty. Consider the following passage of poetry in Psalm 63-

NIV wrote: O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.

KJV wrote: O God, thou art my God;
early will I seek thee:
my soul thirsteth for thee,
my flesh longeth for thee
in a dry and thirsty land,
where no water is.

The original Hebrew is poetry. So is the KJV. The NIV isn't, really. I'm not a fan of KJV--it's very old, and despite being very beautiful, the scholarship is starting to show some cracks these days. But there's no denying that, as Lothar put it to me once, "KJV doth rocketh for Psalms."

-----

A final debate has to do with culture and the translation of idioms. The Bible was written between two and four thousand years ago, on the other side of the world, and moreover much of the communication is pictoral rather than literal. There are a lot of idioms floating around that our culture doesn't share. A humorous example can be found in I Sam. 25:22. An enraged King David proclaims (in NIV), "May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him!" This is softening the statement a little. Looking to the literal translation we see, "... if I leave any of all that is his, to the light of morning, one who urinates against a wall." That last, er, idiom is flattened to "male" in most translations, though I think NAS has a footnote about it. It's a loss, in my opinion

More controversially, in the last few decades the English language has undergone a shift where the word "man" can't be used to mean "an arbitrary member of mankind, male or female", and the use of "He" as a pronoun for "anyone" doesn't really work anymore. How are modern Bible translations to deal with this? It's a touchier point than you might think because there is a fair bit of theological thought on what it means to be male and female. And of course, the original language followed the old convention.

Some modern translations flatten all instances of "man" and "he" into "them" or "anyone" or "they", while others stalwartly defend the old grammar. A verse I like to use as a litmus test for a translation is Matthew 16:24. In KJV, this reads,

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

NIV modifies some of the masculine speech, but leaves some as well. This is an attempt at compromise between clarity and good English style.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

A stronger revision occurs in the Contemporary English Version:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you want to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take up your cross and follow me."

One of the more general problems with gender-inclusive langauge is that it's hard to write without recasting sentences a lot. CEV makes for a very dynamic translation which some criticize as focusing too much on "you" and not enough on "Jesus".

-----------

Where does all of that leave us with translations? Well, there are a lot of them, suitable for a lot of different purposes, each with different flaws. Most of them are useful for something somewhere. NAS and NIV are good compromises in most respects, which I think accounts for their popularity.

Finally, I can't finish a post about translation without putting in a plug for the NET Bible, my personal favorite. The translation's pretty good, but it comes with a huge (and I mean huge!) set of translator's notes which say, "This is what we translated and why, and here are some alternate opinions on it." This is a very good way of going about it, offering the reader a direct interaction with the translator's scholarship.

Drakona wrote:This is fairly dynamic, as the spectrum goes, but notice the bolded phrase. "God's active force"? Every other translation has "Spirit of God". What's going on here? The answer is to be found, not in any nuance of the original language (ruach -- the Hebrew word -- very simply means "spirit" or "breath"), but in distinctive JW beliefs. They believe that what the text calls "the Spirit of God" isn't a personal spirit, but an impersonal force. So they have translated it that way.

Your statement here is not accurate. Every other translation does not have "Spirit of God."

The Good News Bible, Today's English Version (TEV), was translated and published by the United Bible Societies. The forward to this Bible says this:

"This new translation seeks to state clearly and accurately the meaning of the original texts in words and forms that are widely accepted by people who use English as a means of communication. This translation does not follow the traditional vocabulary and attempts in this century to set forth the Biblical content and message in standard, everyday, natural form of English.
"The aim of this Bible is to give today's readers maximum understanding of the content of the original texts."

In harmony with the above, the TEV translates Genesis 1:2 this way:
"the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the power of God was moving over the water."

They also add a footnote:

"the power of God; or the spirit of God; or a wind from God; or an awesome wind."

Ruach - the Hebrew word - does mean spirit or breath, but it also means wind, as shown by the footnote. All these things, spirit, breath, and wind, are invisible, and yet they can all have a forceful effect upon visible things.

As a side note, the Greek word which corresponds to the Hebrew "ruach," is "pneuma", which also means "wind," and is where the English word "pneumatic" comes from.

As stated above, "wind" is an invisible force, which is probably why the JW's translate the phrase in Genesis 1:2 as "God's active force." This is a technically accurate way to translate this verse, even if it does not adhere to the standard model - a course that the United Bible Societies seem to agree with.

It's interesting to see those other translations of Genesis 1:1-2. The New American Bible, the translation most commonly used in American Catholic churches and pretty much the only one I've been familiar with throughout my life, renders it like this:

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

The mention of the Spirit of God is in the footnote for the second verse:

A mighty wind: literally, \"a wind of God,\" or \"a spirit of God\"; cf Genesis 8:1.

For those Latin nerds among us, there's always the Vulgate, as well:

In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean the statement to be taken so technically--I didn't mean that all other translations had \"Spirit of God\" there--only the ones I posted. Nor did I really try to talk about all the definitions of the word or the technical issues surrounding translation. It's just an example for people new to the subject, after all.

\"Wind\" is certainly an adequete translation of the Hebrew \"ruach\", and I've seen it before--my Jewish Tanakh has it that way, and I know it's used elsewhere that way. I don't think it's the best translation in this case (I think \"ruach elohim\" is well-established to mean Spirit of God, whereas I don't think we encounter a \"wind from God\" anywhere in scripture), but it's certainly permissible by the language.

However, that is as far as I think you can really go with it. Hebrew \"ruach\" has as many applications as does English \"spirit\", and many in common: everything from \"a spirit of bitterness\" to \"spiritedness\" to \"spirit beings\". But that doesn't mean the word's infinitely plastic, and (while I'm no great Hebrew scholar and could be wrong about this) I'm pretty sure \"power\" or \"force\" introduce elements that aren't there.

And it's definitely silly to say the word can be translated \"active force\" because it can be translated \"wind\", \"spirit\", or \"breath\", all of which are \"invisible forces\". That's a little like saying \"palm\" can be translated as \"small object\" because, well, a palm pilot and a human palm are small objects. The meaning of each use is distinct and specific, and multiple meanings don't justify throwing everything into one basket. Generalization is sometimes unavoidable where languages don't match up, but it's hardly a a good accurate translation practice.

I definitely stand by what I said--the rationale for translating the word \"active force\" won't be found in any subtlety of the underlying language, because it doesn't exist there. You can try to make the case that it's a permissible translation, and--at best--I may grant it as a stretch, but it would not be anyone's first choice for linguistic reasons--only for theological ones.

In fact, I think the translation is so odd that I find it strange that anyone who isn't a JW would try to defend it. Do you have some JW background or something, Shoku? (No offense or putting-on-the-spotness intended. Just curious.)

Drakona wrote:However, that is as far as I think you can really go with it. Hebrew "ruach" has as many applications as does English "spirit", and many in common: everything from "a spirit of bitterness" to "spiritedness" to "spirit beings". But that doesn't mean the word's infinitely plastic, and (while I'm no great Hebrew scholar and could be wrong about this) I'm pretty sure "power" or "force" introduce elements that aren't there.

In other words, context in which we use a word matters. ..can you say "All your base are belong to us?" There is accepted context by scholars. Also, there is a whole big subtopic called "hermeneutics". And we've gone over this before.

If those who want to split hairs on this, most Bibles that are reputable will have sub-notes indicating where the exact translation of the word is uncertain. And most of those words are based in ancient Aramaic. (but not always)


**sorry Drakina, I DID read you're entire post, that paragraph in particular jumped out at me.**

Drakona wrote:In fact, I think the translation is so odd that I find it strange that anyone who isn't a JW would try to defend it. Do you have some JW background or something, Shoku? (No offense or putting-on-the-spotness intended. Just curious.)

Hmm. A good scholar should be critical, but not prejudicial. If I had used Top Gun's example of the New American Bible rendition, would you have queried me about being Catholic? I never try to judge anything based upon such a group centered mentality. I try to let the translation stand on it's own – any translation.

As I said above, there are many jewels in the NWT, just as there are in the NAB, or the TEV, or the NASB, or the CEV. All versions have their biases – that can't be helped. But they can produce excellent renditions of various verses that fit the context better than other translations. I actually prefer “the power of God” from the TEV, but “God's active force” while quite a stretch from the original language, is an excellent paraphrase of what was intended at Gen. 1:2. The context is creation. Ruach was used to denoted “wind” and is used here to reveal God's creative force at work; the “mighty wind”of the New English Bible, and the New American Bible; the “mighty wind” recognized in a footnote in the CEV, and other translations. This scripture is not speaking about a person, it's speaking about God's creative works and how they were accomplished. Wind is an invisible force. God directed “wind” or “spirit” is also an invisible force; a power that he uses to accomplish his works.

Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will bear witness for me in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and away to the ends of the earth.” NEB.

Holy Spirit imparts power because it is power – God's spirit has the ability to empower, to create and to destroy. It is the means by which he accomplishes all things.

Zechariah 4:6: “So the angel explained that it was the following message of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'I am the LORD All-Powerful. So don't depend on your own power or strength, but on my Spirit.” CEV.

I understand that people tend to balk at some versions, but opinion should not be based on the cover, or who translated. The text should stand on it's own, and where it fails it should be noted, but where it excels should also be noted. One excellent example is the Cotton Patch Version by Clarence Jordan. Many would be happy to see every copy of this translation burned. Yet it contains some of the best renditions of Greek verse into English I have ever seen. Granted I think he missed it when he transported everyone into the southern USA, but the language is, in many instances, superb.

You seem to have some very strong opinions – nothing wrong with that, I do too. But try not to let those opinions blind you to other possibilities. I am sure one day we will both meet in God's Kingdom and have one great laugh about all this. Peace.

So, Shoku, are you JW or not? Do you have a JW background or not?

ccb056 wrote:If everyone agreed on a "root"/"standard" "version"/"translation" of the "Bible", most likely the original manuscripts, then it is conceivably possible that the various versions of Christianity would cease to exist.

Drakona wrote:It's very unlikely that adopting a common translation would resolve any of the existing debates.

Exactly (and excellent posts Drakona!)

Translation is not just a science, it is an art. You can't just sit down and say that this word translates into that word. There are words and phrases even in modern languages that are VERY difficult to translate into another modern language. When you are dealing with ancient tongues and multiple manuscripts, it is subject to a LOT of variation, even when the translators have the best skills and intentions.

Shoku wrote:No translation is perfect, but many translations are quite beneficial in the quest to acquire a well-rounded understanding of what the original writers intended.

Yep. I will not work from just one translation in my study. It's simply not safe. NO translation is perfect, no translation CAN be perfect. The Shoku/Drakona debate on the "Spirit of God" vs "Power of God" is just SO perfect in displaying this. In order to determine what a text really means, you need to have MULTIPLE points of view available. My library is missing an interliner, I have simply GOT to fill that gap.

Zuruck wrote:Couldn't something have been lost in the translation?? Maybe the part where it says "THIS IS ALL MADE UP"?

<sigh>
The sad thing here is that there are so many sharp pointy attacks that an unbeliever can make against the Bible related to translation and cannon. And it's kind of fun to defend against those attacks. But when the attackers are armed only with wet noodles, knocking them down is only tedious and boring. Saying the Bible is "All made up" is akin to saying that the moon landings were faked, or that the earth is flat. Come on Zuruck, give us religious types a bit of competition! Come up with something thats at least a LITTLE bit of a challenge.

Lothar wrote:So, Shoku, are you JW or not? Do you have a JW background or not?

Shoku has previously stated that he is not a JW. He has repeatedly avoided answering the question of exactly what official religion (if any) he belongs to, and despite my desperate curiosity, I think we should respect that position. You shouldn't HAVE to reveal your religious background before you can participate in a religious discussion.

Kilarin, I've thought of you as a decent antagonist, but c'mon, comparing the bible to the earth is a little dumb. If something has been translated through 10 languages and over 2000 years, don't you feel like a lot of things could have been lost. What if the Catholic church deleted out the entire chapter where it stated that this was a moral doctrine and nothing else so that they could control the world for the time being? Just think of the concept, you religious types are all the same, you believe it and you don't know why. Don't you need any proof? Anything at all? Feeling good in Sunday school is not proof, doing good on a calculus test is not proof merely because you prayed beforehand. Stop making excuses for yourself and live each and every day to its fullest.

I think you'll have a far better time doing that than sitting around the dinner table at night discussing which books to burn like Lothar and Drakona do.

Zuruch wrote:c'mon, comparing the bible to the earth is a little dumb.

Not actually, we are talking about simple provable facts. Saying the Bible is "all made up" implies that is a work of fiction. There are too many verifiable historical facts to say it was fiction. Note, I am NOT saying that the Bible is a perfect history book, just that we can trace enough facts to EASILY verify that it's not entirely fiction.

Zuruch wrote:If something has been translated through 10 languages and over 2000 years, don't you feel like a lot of things could have been lost.

See, you CAN do better. It's not a real good attack, but a great improvement over screaming "Fiction!" Many Christians are not very well educated on cannon/translation issues and are uncomfortable dealing with them, but they really shouldn't be. Attacks along this line have been pretty well covered, on both sides, but are at least INTERESTING.

Zuruch wrote:I think you'll have a far better time doing that than sitting around the dinner table at night discussing which books to burn like Lothar and Drakona do.

<sigh> And we were making such good progress. Can you provide a link to any place where either Lothar or Drakona promoted burning books? I'm not certain why we have to throw in a personal attack at the end of the message, but if you are going to, at LEAST make it one that makes sense! Make them good, amusing and entertaining insults!

Just think of the concept, you religious types are all the same, you believe it and you don't know why. Don't you need any proof? Anything at all? Feeling good in Sunday school is not proof, doing good on a calculus test is not proof merely because you prayed beforehand. Stop making excuses for yourself and live each and every day to its fullest.

He brings up an interesting point however. Even though I am religious myself, this is one of my biggest beefs with mainstream religion. Churches typically seem to care more about numbers, membership and money rather than the spiritual well being and education of it's members. And there are people in religion who feel that just because they go to church every now and then that things will be okay. Not to mention church doctrines and traditions that conflict with bible teachings.

I think that anybody who believes the bible and it's teachings must STUDY and research as to why they believe certain doctrines and teachings as well as researching information to defend those beliefs and solidify their conviction. One thing I can't stand is that people blindly believe in something and when questioned about it, they respond with \"Well, God knows that I mean well\" or \"Well it no longer means this\" or \"Well, it's the tradition of the church to do so, so I do it\", etc... Heck, if that was the case, I could justify selling drugs to feed my family, etc...

I don't want to get off topic though. I just figured that it was worth mentioning. I have to admit though. Shoku's knowledge is pretty astounding and what he mentioned makes a lot of sense as far as understanding the meaning of that text. Literal translations can be accurate, but even then, the meaning can be misunderstood if not written in a way that someone who reads modern English can understand. I'm quite sure we've learned from sites like Engrish.com, and \"all your base\" that literal translations can be rather confusing. A lot of times, Paraphrasing in language easily understandable to the reader is neccessary. I've actually met a few people of various religions who use the NWT for that very reason.

Admiral Thrawn wrote:have to admit though. Shoku's knowledge is pretty astounding

Indeed, which is what makes him so incredibly intimidating when he's on the opposite side of an issue!

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Literal translations can be accurate, but even then, the meaning can be misunderstood if not written in a way that someone who reads modern English can understand.

And it's a lot more complex than just little misunderstandings. Sometimes there is NO right answer in how to translate something. Let me steal an example from D. Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. (I'm paraphrasing here, get the book, its MUCH better)

Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment" uses a street name in it's first sentence. What is the best way to translate that street name?

Transliterated the street name would be "S. Pereulok". The real street was "Stoliarny Pereulok", And anyone familiar with Leningrad can figure that out. "Stoliarny Pereulok" means "Carpenter Lane". The first word was abbreviated in order to provide the "feel" of anonymity, while still making it clear where the story took place. Dostoevsky wanted the story to feel "real" without making people think all of the crimes were literal crimes that actually happened. It's as if you wrote a political satire about an important political leader who you simply called GWB. You get the "shell" of anonymity without really being anonymous. Everyone KNOWS who you mean, but they can't sue you.

Now how do you TRANSLATE that?
You could just transliterate it as "S. Pereulok", but then the English Reader is left with what is just a random jumble of letters to them, it doesn't MEAN anything that it meant in the original.

You could change it to "S. Lane", and with this you maintain some of the original feel because the reader can tell something has been left out, but since the English reader is unlikely to be familiar with Leningrad, they will NOT be likely to be able to identify the actual street, and we lose the feel of the original, the "forced" anonymity of something that could be easily traced to a real street name. The English reader will simply be left wondering why all these streets have so many initials.

You could translate the street name out entirely, "Carpenter Lane", which is accurate, but now you have REVERSED the authors original intention by giving the full street name, AND, since this name makes sense in English, you lose the "Russian" feel. You could start imagining the novel taking place in London. In which case, why not just read Dickens?

You could mix the two with Stoliarny Lane. Now it feels Russian, but again we have lost the intended anonymity.

And all of that difficulty is just with translating one street name in the first sentence of one novel in a modern language. When we go back to ancient tongues, the work is MUCH harder. do you attempt to maintain the flow and thought of the original, or do you stick to a more literal translation of the words? How on EARTH to you translate the idioms and metaphors? The modern reader misses most of the blatant erotic content of Song of Solomon. And, to make matters worse, exactly how blatant that content is is a matter of some debate. Trying to determine exactly what was meant by certain metaphors thousands of years ago is not easy. And even if you ARE certain you understand them, how do you translate it? Do you change the poetic imagery to literal imagery? Then you lose the ENTIRE feel of the piece, but if you leave the metaphors as is, you risk the reader missing much of the content, and if you try to change the metaphors to more modern ones, you might as well just write your OWN poem.

Translation is complex. Anyone who tries to tell you that only ONE version of the Bible is "right" just doesn't understand the topic.

So Kilarin, which parts of the Bible were dropped to suit those translating it? You see, you proved me point for me, much thanks, there is no way to know for certain over the ages. It's impossible, fallible, and a waste of paper.

It's funny, I hate religion more than anything. But I still think everyone should have it if they want it, just leave me alone

Zuruck wrote:It's impossible, fallible, and a waste of paper.

Actually, science agrees more with bible truth rather than disagreeing with it. That coupled with archeological history comes up with some VERY interesting facts. Even down to the prophesies that are being fullfilled even down to this day. The reason why you think that it's a waste of paper is out of ignorance. And when I say ignorance, I'm not calling you stupid, but when you look deeply at the universe around us, you will find that it's just a tad too "convenient" for things to be the way they are. Couple that with things that were stated even before they were proved by science and you will find pretty compelling evidence. But I'm not here to push religion on you. But don't be so quick to dismiss things merely because you don't know enough about them.

Zuruck wrote: It's funny, I hate religion more than anything. But I still think everyone should have it if they want it, just leave me alone

I think this is starting to get to the point of where your feelings on religion come from. Is it the teachings of the bible itself, and if so, which teachings in particular? Or is it the people who practice religion, and if so, which groups and why?

Zuruck wrote:which parts of the Bible were dropped to suit those translating it? You see, you proved me point for me, much thanks, there is no way to know for certain over the ages.

Heh. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. That is what STUDY is about. And it's true for virtually ALL historic documents. The Bible is actually highly reliable compared to many other historical writings. The Egyptians were always going back and wiping names out of history, making study very tricky, but even with that handicap, we still study egyptology and think it well worth while. The Bible is much easier than that, and more worth while. Go back to This thread and read it over again. Considering the age of the documents, the accuracy of the modern version of the Bible is remarkable. Almost miraculous.

I don't actually find it threatening that the Bible wasn't dictated by God. It was written by people who I believe were Inspired by God. Understanding exactly what the meaning is can take some work at times, but anything in life that is worthwhile takes work. You don't spend 2 minutes in descent and suddenly know how to trichord. Heck, in my case YEARS of practice aren't adiquate.

With Bible study, it's really surprisingly easy to do research MUCH more deeply than most Christians are willing to do. First, get yourself SEVERAL versions of the Bible. (or use a website like http://www.searchgodsword.com) and when you are studying a particular text, examine it in all of the translations to see how different people interpreted the original documents.

THEN, get a copy of Strongs Exhaustive Concordance. You can get it hardcover, NEW, for $13 bucks US. With Strongs, you can easily look up the hebrew or greek meanings for each word in the orginal. You'd be surprised how much insight this simple tool can add to Bible study. As a Heretic, Zuruck, you should definitly own a copy. Next time you get into an argument with one of us theists, just pull out your Strongs and you can start sounding like an expert as you debate whether the text was mistranslated.
And, again, if you prefer to do your work online, at http://www.searchgodsword.com you can do your research on "KJV with Strongs Numbers" and then hover your cursor over any word in the text, right click and select "open in new tab" and viola! There is the greek/hebrew dictionary definition of the word for you. SHINY!

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that new translations and new denominations don't generally go together. The only group I can think of that had their own translation is the Jehovah's Witnesses with New World Translation. (Recently they began using other translations, and a few non-JW's do use NWT, which strengthens the point -- even the one group I can think of with their \"own\" translation uses others.) A few other groups use King James almost exclusively, but there's not exactly a \"King James\" denomination.

So, why do we make new Bible translations? Remember, the purpose of a translation is to clearly communicate what was said in language X to a target audience that speaks language Y. We create a new translation whenever we don't already have one that suits that purpose. Here are some example reasons:

1) Our own language changed. \"Awful\" used to mean what we now use \"awesome\" for; \"thee\" and \"thou\" were commonly used; \"ass\" meant donkey rather than butt. If you read an older translation that uses those words, it might be confusing. Or, for a more modern controversy, it used to be acceptable to refer to large mixed groups as \"men\" but now some people think \"men\" refers only to large groups of males. If you want to communicate with people who think that, you have to retranslate some verses to say \"people\".

2) We find or select a new target audience. For example, the Bible is presently being translated into the Navajo language, because there are now Navajo-speaking Christians. Another popular Bible translation (I believe it's \"New Living Translation\") was created by someone who wanted a Bible suitable for children of a particular age group. Other Bible translations are made specifically for pastors, scholars, certain minority groups, missionaries, teens, Australians, Messianic Jews, and various other groups. Whether the groups have different levels of education, different linguistic tendencies, different history or tradition, or whatever, clearly communicating to them requires different translations.

3) We find new evidence relating to the original texts. For example, in 1948 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. These included Hebrew-language Old Testament manuscripts from about 100-200 BC. Until then, the oldest known Hebrew-language manuscripts were from about 800 AD. There were a few places where the Dead Sea Scrolls were different from the newer manuscripts, and a few places where they acted as a \"tie-breaker\" between newer manuscripts that disagreed. This led to new translations based on additional evidence. (For Zuruck: it's not as though the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin to Greek to German to French to English to Chinese and back to English. No; we go directly from very very old original-language texts to modern English. Other old translations in Latin, Greek, etc. are often used as a reference to clarify points that aren't certain in the original language.)

4) We hold different theological assumptions from other translators. That is, we believe there are theological (rather than linguistic) reasons to translate things differently from how they have been before. For example, if I believed the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force, I might create a translation like NWT. If I believed Genesis 1 was meant to be treated like poetry, I might translate it into a poetic form. (There's nothing particularly wrong with this, as long as you're up front about it. I totally disagree with the assumptions in NWT, and I think JW's are a cult, but that doesn't mean they're wrong to translate using their assumptions.)

-----

Most translations of the Bible have some value in them. I think NWT distorts the original language in a lot of ways (many of which Shoku would no doubt disagree with me on, which is why the \"are you a JW\" question keeps coming up -- he's the most JW-like non-JW I've ever met, not just in doctrine, but in his argument techniques.) Even so, there are some good passages in it.

For a time, I used to study 4 translations in parallel -- King James, NIV, Living Bible, and Revised Standard. My wife was using New American Standard at the time, and we always studied together. We found all 5 translations were valuable at one time or another. Now that I've read through the Bible in a few different translations, I'm drawn more toward the New English Translation for its translators notes or toward interlinear (word-for-word, with the original language and English interspersed.) But sometimes I'll read a translation I'd never read before, and it will have a different wording that will make me think of something in an entirely new light.

-----

So, where do new denominations come from? In general, from disputes not about what the original text SAYS, but about what it MEANS or about how to BEST LIVE IT OUT.

For example, in Matthew 22:21 Jesus says \"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's\".
He's answered a question \"should we pay taxes\" by asking to see a coin and asking whose image/inscription is on the coin. \"Caesar's\", the people answer. He says to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, and nobody that I know of disagrees with that translation. Here's where the disagreement comes in (and this is the sort of thing that leads to the formation of denominations, usually over multiple issues): is Jesus telling us that we should pay taxes, or not?

Some people would say, well of course! Give Caesar his taxes; it's plain as day. Give Caesar what is Caesar's, what is there to argue about? Others would say Jesus didn't answer the question about taxes at all (which would not be out of character for Jesus!) They'd say Jesus asked to see the coin because the coin had an inscription that called Caesar \"divine\" (see here) and He was telling them Caesar did not deserve that glory, while saying nothing about taxes. Now, both sides could argue about this all day and probably not get anywhere, but my point in bringing it up isn't to argue it anyway. My point is just to say, even if we use the exact same translations denominations split on questions like this.

Another major source for denominational splits is a question of procedure... do we sing new songs or old? Do we have a single pastor in charge of the congregation, a board of elders, or does everyone vote? Should we have a church-sponsored homeless shelter or should each person individually donate to outside causes? And so on...

Getting rid of different translations wouldn't get rid of denominations. It would just make it harder for people to study and understand. Overall, that would be a bad thing.

[quote="Admiral Thrawn]Actually, science agrees more with bible truth rather than disagreeing with it. That coupled with archeological history comes up with some VERY interesting facts. And when I say ignorance, I'm not calling you stupid, but when you look deeply at the universe around us, you will find that it's just a tad too "convenient" for things to be the way they are.[/quote]

Thrawn, if either side had an answer for the order of the universe, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The natural order of things, in my view, are the way they are simply because that's the way it is. I see religion as a means for people to feel a little bit better about being so small in this life. We sit on a very small rock in a massive, massive, massive place and we think we're it.

I've got it, why don't we see if men of God can do the same things that the men did in the bible. Let's have a blue whale swallow a priest and see if he lives after what, 40 days or something? Then, let's have the archbishop of Chicago jump in the lion cage at the Lincoln Park Zoo and see if he survives. If they're men of god and believe in him, God should silence the lions right and protect the priest, right? Are we not allowed to test his power? Are we supposed to roll over and just rely on faith? Is this the same faith that led Eric Rudolph to believe that killing doctors that performed abortions would give him salvation?

Zuruck wrote:I've got it, why don't we see if men of God can do the same things that the men did in the bible.

Ah, good! This is a valid and interesting approach!
The answer is that God isn't a vending machine into which you stick prayers and out come miracles. God is God, the creator of the universe, omnipotent, omniscient, and He does what He wants, when He wants. The Miracles in the Bible occured when God wanted them too. Elijah was able to call down fire in a spectacular demonstration on Mount Carmel because God had already TOLD him that it was time to end the famine, and presumably how to do so.

So, why did God do such a spectacular demonstration then, and not at other times? Why did Christ sometimes work remarkable miracles for people, and at other times refused to give a sign from heaven?

Well, actually, the honest answer is "WE DON'T KNOW", because God doesn't tell us everything. Which is as you should expect. God works miracles when HE knows it's the right time. That is not a scientifically testable claim since there is NO WAY for mankind to control the testing conditions.

Now lots of people claim they can "Deliver" miracles on demand. Faith Healers and others have often implied that they can get God to do what they want, when THEY want God to do it. That IS a testable claim, and every time it has been tested, the miracle demanders have failed. God doesn't WORK that way.

Good question! Worthy of more discussion.

Yeah, really. Maybe God was thinking that the lions needed a bit of variety in their regular diet. How would we know?

Bad luck for the archbishop though ...

Kilarin, wait one second. We test everything before we give it our boon. Restaurants, girlfriends, cars, everything gets tried out and proven beforehand. I know that you're going to say that God doesn't need verification, all he needs is faith and you'll be saved or whatnot. As an addendum to my earlier post, if the Pope were to throw himself in a cage filled with half crazed wolves, wouldn't God protect THE man of God? Would he simply decree that's it's not \"time\" for a miracle and let him be torn to bits? Are we allowed to test his ability? If not, why not? Let's not demand a test, let a man of God do it willingly, God should protect one of his own right?

*this thread is changing quick.

Zuruck wrote:I know that you're going to say that God doesn't need verification, all he needs is faith and you'll be saved or whatnot.

Au Contraire!
I said the claim that God works miracles when He wants to is not Scientifically testable. We may be able to explore a particular instance, but without repeatability, the experiment will always be indeterminate.

That does NOT mean that I think we should not verify God. This whole idea of "Blind Faith" is not biblical. I have plenty of reasons, RATIONAL reasons, to believe in God. The fact that they aren't really testable in the lab doesn't nullify them. Relationship issues rarely are.

Zuruck wrote:if the Pope were to throw himself in a cage filled with half crazed wolves, wouldn't God protect THE man of God?

Ask the Catholics, not a protestant.

But seriously, NO. There is no guarantee at ALL that God will feel that a Miracle is required there, even if you grant that the Pope is "THE man of God". We only have to look at the stories in the Bible to confirm this. Christ said that "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist", and yet, Harod beheaded John.
Tradition says that Isaiah was sawed in half. Elisha, a prophet who God used to raised the dead, died of an illness. Stephen was stoned to death. Paul, despite all of the miracles he worked for others, was unable to get God to heal his "Thorn in the flesh", and was beheaded just like John. The list goes on and on, but at the very TOP of the list must be Christ, who BEGGED God to let Him avoid the Cross. "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done", And Christ was crucified.

Many religious leaders try to push that we should follow God because that will bring "Good Things" for us here on earth. But this just isn't Biblical. Yes, God wants to do good things for us, and frequently can. But we follow God because it is RIGHT, not because of what we can get out of it. And, as followers, we must be willing tools, to be used as God sees fit. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were about to be thrown into the fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar, note CAREFULLY what they told him:

"Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

God is able to deliver us, but WHETHER OR NOT He decides to, we will still follow Him. If God's purpose is best served by our death, then we willingly submit.

Zuruck, why get that elaborate? Why not just stick his ahnd in a garbage desporal? If God can save from lions, He can save froma a garbage dispoal.

This is called testing God.

While there are SOME things God actaully requests that we DO test Him on, THIS Sort of test that you describe is warned against.

btw, Satan asked Jesus the something simular:

Matthew 4:5-7 wrote:5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Becareful with whom you keep company.

I used the lions because it's stated that God protected David from the lions, I would hate to use something that God may not have power over, in this case, electricity. Of course the test I bring up is warned against, a fake presence doesn't not want you to question it...if you do and receive no answer...you may not be willing to believe in it so much anymore right? Outlaw the ability to question and you'll stay in power, that's dictator rule # 2.

Zuruck wrote:God protected David from the lions

Daniel.
David fought Goliath and had an affair with Bathsheba.
Unless you are refering to David's early fight with a lion attacking his sheep, in which David was victorious and the lion became a nice rug.

Actually, the bible mentions as to why there are no more miracles like the ones we see in the bible and why they are not needed.

I stand corrected Kilarin, it's been 15 years since I opened a bible. Thrawn, elaborate for me please. Interesting that the very book that claims miracles would cease them and say they are not needed anymore.

On a side note, I'm enjoying the short threads, it's easier to read, no long, long posts ok?