Why I feel this is noteworthy, is for two reasons: First, our children, who are are unable to watch this kind of cultural evolution of God's word, might eventually think it is a legitimate translation. Secondly, honest Christians, if they use this "bible", will be distracted from what God really said. Already we have a dangerous mixture of Americanism/Christian, or Nationalism/Christian, philosophy throughout Christendom, thus polluting the message of the Kingdom of God.
We live in some very interesting times, and it's obvious to me, that the enemy of our souls is setting the stage for winning the minds of those who are not conscious of his devices. In the end, the devils hope, is to gather as many as he can into a meaningless and godless "faith", replacing that faith with conservatism, or some other counterfeit. Read the story, and be careful of the next bible you buy. Peter
6 comments:
Dear Peter, It would be great for you to write more about this matter, and what you are talking about with the Bible.
As I also have found that one Bible I read left out verses, and the wording you spoke about in the translation, was not right.
It would help the children to understand this, in what you would share with them on this matter.
Bible translation is quite the science. Scholars sometimes spend their entire lives translating it for one language. Word for word translation from one language to another doesn't usually work. For instance, when we use an idiom, "I met a groovy girl, who was out of sight" (60z language) What are we communicating to people who aren't from the 60z? Or from the scripture. "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow". What about the Indians deep in the Amazon, never seen snow! So the translators gotta come up with a phrase that means something to them. Very difficult sometimes. BTW, these same groups that translate the Bible into native language, often have to develop a written language, then teach the tribes to read! All so the people can have, first, God's word, then an improvement in their culture, by having literacy.
But for us, who have so much to choose from, we have dictionaries, cross references, other translations to check etc. We want a translation that is true to the original language (old testament- Hebrew; new testament-Greek)that the scripture was written in.
Regardless of our nationality, or cultural bias, for the honest believer, we all have to change to conform to God's will. To do that, we attempt to find a bible that doesn't incorporate humanist philosophies and 'bents'. There are no perfect bibles, but the honest seeker can pick out the things that are obviously human imput; usually by checking other writers in the New testament, Paul vs Peter for instance. Or John vs. James.
Aside from all this, God does promise to lead the honest heart. Our job however, is to be diligent students, and use the best tools for our search.
Personally, I prefer the King James. But this is because I cut my teeth on it (idiom). And, I find that since the translators were under threat of death (year 1611) if they blew it, they were very careful in their translation! All that said, KJV still has it's issues; but I find there a much fewer than any other I've studied - which total about 30.
BTW, Chardo will be a good source for knowledge about such things. Love ya. Peter
Peter, wost thou not there when thy KJV wost translated?
Dick
No...I wostn't.
Peter,
This is an interesting idea for a lot of reasons. It seems like every idea has a time when it is new, untested, and different than the norm. In a sense I am sorry to even see this new translation put forth. At a time when there are very few moral compasses to guide those that are even interested, the last thing that is needed is yet another interpretation of what many find hard to believe. But then, we in America are privileged to believe in the way we choose, and since we are in a free-market society anyone that can make a product and convince other people that there product is the best. For some it is just the correct product at the proper time.
That being said, there are certain things that we adopt and use that stand the test of time. Many things are good because they have such a market share that their place is not challenged. I have to think, though, the King James Version of the Bible is one that has stood the test of time. But, even its authenticity has been questioned and its very tenants have been scrutinized since during that time it was commissioned by the Church of England there were a group that wanted to break away from the tyranny the Church represented and wanted to escape to the New World so they could practice their beliefs in the way that they deemed “right.” Even then it was put together by the best theological minds of the time, but what was their underlying agenda? This may not have been so much a social agenda as this new printing suggests, but a political agenda.
Man, if the wisest minds in the theological world have a hard time understanding the original text, who am I to call into question their findings? I think it comes down to who can be more persuasive and who can argue their cause the best. I’m not so sure that common people really have the best answer.
I read one of the comments about this article and it somewhat struck a chord with me. The Jews and Muslims learn and read their scripture in the language in which it was written. In today’s political climate this too is a dangerous perspective as it too can be easily taken out of today’s cultural environment.
Wow, isn’t it easier to call things into question rather than to test and thereby live one’s hypothesis? Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating this new printing, only recognizing that change happens.
Jim
I appreciate that some may be in the 'market' for such translations. Just as the scripture says, 'people can't endure sound doctrine, but we tend to ear ticklers' (rouzaud translation of 2Tim4.3)
And you raise some good points. But the first English translation, William Tyndale's, was independent of King Henry who broke with Rome about marriage/divorce. BTW The same bible that condemned Henry's actions in the Greek, condemned him in English. Also,the Geneva, then KJV. The James version doesn't veer from it in any critical points. In fact, Scholars, who spend their lives translating, though they may disagree on minor points, a letter here, a sentence there, agree mostly. But on the things that make "tenents", they agree with it says. They may disagree on what it means, which is beside the point of translation.
For those 'who have faith', they should not worry about those who have none. Skeptics have their own agenda; they may question the Bibles "authenticity..and its very tenants". But based on what? Generally, because they don't like what it says.
BTW, I don't like arguments of 'Faith' by making the bible a book of science, or even absolute historical perfection. I don't care if God created the world in a literal 6 days, or it's figurative. That is not the point of the narrative. I don't care if Noah's flood covered every dirt clod on earth, or if it only covered Mesopotamia, the points of the scripture has to do with the condition of men's souls, and what God has done about it. In my mind, the conservatives who veer from God's main point for political agendas are just as destructive as those who say 'there is no god'. But, yer right, there is a 'product' for everyone. In fact, there are special churchs for practicing homosexuals. But that doesn't make their 'truth' legit.
Yes "change happens". I just don't want it happening to my family (or those within earshot)
Post a Comment