What is your favorite Bible Translation?

by Lo-ru-hamah 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry
    do you think that the bible has any authenticity to it? Do you think that it has any divine authorization and then it has been corrupted by the persons translating it?

    For the bible to be the direct and personal effort of the most powerful intelligence in the universe it would have to be forcefully evident what the messege was. Nobody would be able to resist the clarity and genius of the precision. It would simply be a take it or leave it choice and not a wrestling match with layers of convoluted interplations, extrapolations, and vague run-on obfuscations.

    In other words, "NO". The bible is too crippled, too constricted by heavy-handed jerry-rigging to be anything divine.

    It doesn't just say what it means and mean what it says.

    It is a ghastly relic of thousands of over-eager hands twisting it and turning it to suit their purposes.

    If there was a Supreme Being determined to communicate with mankind the result would be so UNambiguous we'd all be astonished, humbled and stricken into immediate consideration of the importance of our compliance.

    As it is, there is nobody home in the sky. We are just projecting our fears and wishes and personifying our desires and expectations.

  • Quandary
    Quandary

    New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures......NOT!!! I have been doing all of my Bible reading in the American Standard Version

    Q

  • Terry
    Terry

    The question was not whether the Bible is worth translating. Nor whether it is historically true, factual, inerrant,divinely inspired, etc.

    The question was whether there is a text to translate. Whether this text is good or bad, history or fiction, opinion or revelation, is simply irrelevant to that issue.

    What I said about Plato or Aristotle was (obviously enough) not from the standpoint of contents, but of textual transmission. I could have taken Homer, Hesiod, Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes or Menander instead. The point being, all are available onlyin copies of copies with many variant readings. All require textual criticism upstream of translation.

    Of course you can question the methodology of textual criticism -- but you'll have to do that for all ancient works.

    From a more philosophical standpoint you might also wonder if anytranslation (of any text, ancient or modern)is possible at all, arguing that the translation of any work is actually another work. You didn't venture into that.

    Now if you accept the common working standards for the translation of ancient works, you have strictly no basis to deny the equal validity of Bible translation.

    Don't get hysterical on me, Narkissos!

    Relax. Take a deep breath.

    Let's think about this for a second.

    What controversy exists as to the propriety of translating Hesiod or Homer? What damage is done if a variant competes for the public fancy? It is purely a matter of taste. Authenticity is devoutly to be wished, certainly. But, nobody's everlasting life is put in jeopardy if an error is reported, suspected or accused of existing in the text.

    Surely, you will grant there are distinctions aplenty in this analogy of yours.

    My point, premise and argument is so basic it requires little tidying up.

    The text(s) and authenticity of authorship(s) of a messege from God as to life and death surely are not comparable to your Greek fellows. Are they? Well, of course not!

    What I say (and I'll repeat it now) is that the Bible is a superstitious fraud because it represents something entirely transcendent. It is not transcendent. It is largely mythos passed off as more than mythos.

    How many thousands of people have died because they saw the interpretation of bible text differently from their fella believer? Compare that to academic squabbles of this Homer enthusiast versus another. Not a comparison worth making is it?

    If we just scrutinize the Protestant versus Catholic wars, tortures, witch hunts, burnings and flayings it should be enough to convince us that this book is behind all of it. Or, more precisely--the authenticity of its interpretation, messege and orthodoxy.

    No church has any authority to teach or enforce doctrine without a special pleading over a scripture translated from this bible!

    So, for me, Narkissos, the actual question is ludicrously beside the point. It isn't which Bible Translation is (fill in the blank) but, WHY BOTHER?

    Methodology be damned. This bible is bogus. It is a lie compounded throughout Western history. It has a remarkable ability to preoccupy the minds of the ablest of humanity to their pathetic frustration.

    It is worth challenging. It must be challenged. Why? Because the deception continues like child abuse or prejudice. It is passed from generation to generation.

    Children are taught early that the bible represents the most pure and important written messege out of all the books written on the face of the Earth. That is damnable!

    That is why I take exception to your conclusion:

    The question was whether there is a text to translate. Whether this text is good or bad, history or fiction, opinion or revelation, is simply irrelevant to that issue.
  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Terry,

    All you are doing is loudly claiming your right to get farther and farther off topic (look at the thread title).

    The part of your initial post I explicitly reacted to was:

    Translating the bible is a misnomer. There is no "there" there to translate. Instead you have shards, splinters, dumpster retrievals and copies of copies of copies of translated opinions pretending to be actual words and deeds.

    It had to do (loosely) with (A) textual criticism upstream of translation.

    My reply (and the included comparisons) was clearly limited to (A) textual criticism.

    You didn't stick to (A) and switched to (B): the value of the Bible, as if (B) could prove your initial point (A). I showed that (B) is irrelevant to (A). Now you say (A) doesn't matter because of (B). QED.

    You can think that Mein Kampf stinks, is dangerous and shouldn't be translated. This of course has nothing to do with the question whether Mein Kampf can be translated or is more or less accurately translated. But you can also think anything related to Mein Kampf shouldn't even be discussed.

    You seem to be taking the higher censorship stance on everything pertaining to the Bible and religion... as you are not in a position to rule it out, hijacking is the second best choice.

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    Yes, those are good points Narkissos. I am aware of some of those instances, and you are right about them. Then there is the matter of redaction that you mention, which of course brings into question the issue of "inspiration". Did the god(s) have to keep going back over their sacred text until they got it the way they liked it? No, of course not. Did the writers of its various parts have the faintest idea that their work was someday going to be called an "inspired" text? Most likely not.

    Back to the word elohim for a moment. I am basing my assumptions on the following text posted for the fun of it, as I am open to opinions and counterarguments:





    This brings us to the climax of "revelation" of the Hebrew Scriptures, which to many good Christians and Hebrews alike, brought up on professional translations, may well seem startling; but which will now be fully proved by the literal words of the Hebrew Scriptures -- the patent plurality of Hebrew gods in their revelation to man.

    The English, Latin, Greek, and other versions "diligently compared and revised" by professional "divines," to which texts the acquaintance of the vast majority of people is confined, diligently and persistently conceal this cardinal fact under a form of translation designed to give us a belief in an Only One God of Israel from "the beginning," who created heaven and earth, and performed the many wonders related as revealed. But this is a pious fraud; for, according to the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, in their original language, all the works of creation and the many acts appearing in translation and in theology as of a One and Only God are attributed not to any One God, but to "the gods."

    THE ORIGINAL HEBREW WORDS

    It is no work of pedantic erudition but a simple and easy accomplishment for any one who will take the pains to learn the twenty-two consonantal letters of the Hebrew alphabet to recognize by sight and distinguish between four Hebrew words applied to the Hebrew God and gods, plainly printed in the texts of the "Word of God": first, their word El (Heb., S$ ), meaning God or spirit- shade; the plural forms of that word, elohim (Heb., nli'l?14 ) and elohe (Heb., 6$'lg& ); then their name-word Yahveh (Heb., L%*#!| ), or Jehovah, which is persistently falsely concealed and rendered in translation simply by the title "Lord"; and then the actual Hebrew- Chaldean word for "lord," which is "adon" (Heb., J'I$ ). Equipped with this easy and elementary learning, we shall proceed to pick out and examine these four words in some of the principal instances where they occur in the Hebrew texts, and ourselves "diligently compare" them with the pious mistranslations of the English versions -- asking any scholarly "Doctor of Divinity" to deny the result if he truthfully can.

    "THE GODS CREATED"

    In the very first sentence of Genesis, the Book of Beginnings, we find the "revelation" of the plurality of gods -- elohim: In- beginning created ELOHIM [gods] the-heavens and-the-earth" (Gen. i, 1). The forms of the sentences show the order of the Hebrew words, and the hyphens indicate the combination of the particles "and," "the," etc., which are joined to the noun in Hebrew and written as one word; e.g., "theheavens," "andtheearth." "And-the-spirit [ruach, wind] of-elohim [gods] moved upon-the-face of-the-abyss" (i, 2); "And-said elohim [gods], let-there-be light." And thus, for thirty-three times in the first chapter of Genesis, we read "ELOHIM" (gods) -- always plural, always "gods," but always translated "God."

    There is proof of plurality which even translation cannot in this instance conceal: "And-said ELOHIM [gods], Let-make-us man [adam] in-image-our, after-likeness-our" (i, 26). And the words of the text indicate there must have been female gods, too; for it is recorded: "And-created elohim the-adam [man]; in-the-image of- elohim [gods] created-he-him; male-and-female created-he-them." This is reiterated for positive assurance: "In-the-day that elohim created adam [man], in-the-likeness of-elohim [gods] made-he-them; male-and-female created-he-them; and-blessed them, and-called name- their adam [man], in-the-day when they-were-created" (Gen. v, 1-2).

    Not one God, but a plurality of gods, from the very beginning of Hebrew Scripture is further proved by the familiar dialogue between the serpent and the woman: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; for elohim [gods] do know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods [elohim], knowing good and evil" (Gen. iii, 5). And the serpent spoke true; and when Yahveh-Elohim heard that the- man and the-woman had eaten the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, he (they) said., "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (iii, 22). Here certainly is one god speaking to another god or a whole assembly or Olympus of gods.

    In the second, or Jahvistic, chapter, we first encounter the variants Yahveh and "Yahveh Elohim"' (Yahveh being here, as often, abbreviated: "yy"), which distinguish the use of a second and very often conflicting source, as is elsewhere pointed out. The Elohist account of creation, using the word "elohim, ends with Genesis ii, 3; immediately the totally different "Jahvistic" narrative begins: "In the day [not the six days of the Elohist version] that Yahveh Elohim made the earth and the heavens" (ii, 4). We find Yahveh Elohim thirteen times in the second chapter, doing a totally different work of creation -- always Yahveh Elohim, always plural, always "gods," but always misrendered "Lord God."

    YAHVEH ELOHIM is the ordinary Hebrew "construct" form used to express the genitive, or possessive, case, there being no equivalent for "of" in Hebrew. "The relation of the genitive is regularly expressed by attaching the genitive noun to the preceding nomens regens in the construct state" (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, see. 114). The reader is already familiar with examples: beth-el, house of god; beth-ha-elohim, house of the gods; ben-adam, son of man, or of men; beni-ha-elohim, sons of the gods; Yahveh elohe- yishrael, Yahveh god of Israel; "Yahveh your God is elohe ha- elohim, and adonai ha-adonim, ha-el haggadol [God of the gods, and Lord of the lords, the great God]" (Deut. x, 17). Yahveh-elohim therefore is simply "Yahveh-of-the-gods," "Yahveh God-of-gods"; precisely, "Yahveh one of, chief of, the gods." In the same way elohe is used in the "construct state" for singular and plural, followed by the genitive of the governed noun, as in the examples just cited; for example, elohe yishrael, God of Israel; elohe ha- elohim, God of the gods; Yahveh elohe-ka, Yahveh thy God.

    Chapter iii is composite, and we find sometimes Elohim, sometimes Yahveh Elohim; but always the plural; and so in chapter iv. Even more explicit are the words of chapter v, where it is twice recorded: "And Enoch walked with THE-GODS [ha-elohim]; and (gods) [elohim] took him" (22, 24). And so of Noah, in chapter vi: "And Noah was a just man; he walked with the-gods" (ha-elohim; vi, 9). Chapter vi is a veritable medley of composition, and of plurality of deity, beginning the fable of the Flood: "The SONS of the GODS [beni ha-elohim -- a Hebraism for 'the gods'] saw the daughters of men" (vi, 2), and (vi, 3) "Yahveh said." And again (vi, 4): "The sons of the GODS [beni ha-elohim] came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children unto them"; and (vi, 5) "Yahveh saw." "The earth was corrupted before THE GODS [ha-elohim]" (vi, 11); and (vi, 12) "Elohim [gods] saw the earth"; and (vi, 13) "Elohim [gods] said to Noah"; and (vi, 22) "Noah did all that elohim commanded him." Here again, the word is always plural (except where we have Yahveh), always the gods, but it is always rendered "God."

    "The sons of the gods" (beni ha-elohim -- a synonym for Gods) are frequently mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures: "the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahveh" (Job i, 6; ii, 1); and "all the sons of the gods shouted for joy" (Job xxxviii, 7). The God of the Hiebrews was thus plainly not one God, but a plurality of gods and goddesses, who themselves, [Eneye. Bib., Vol. IV, cols. 4690-91; art. Son of God.] or whose children were of so sportive a nature that they corrupted the earth and brought on its fabled destruction by the Flood of Noah.

    Now we have a singular confirmation of the plurality of the Hebrew elohim (gods), and of their identity with the elohim (gods) of the other heathen tribes and peoples thereabouts. In Genesis xx, Abraham takes Sarah, his wife, and journeys to Gerar, in the Philistine country, of which the king was Abimelech, whose name signifies "Moloch (or the king) is my father" -- certainly a heathen who knew not the supposed One-God, Yahveh, of Abraham. Abimelech, according to a jovial custom of the country, took Sarah and slept with her, thinking she was Abraham's sister, as he had falsely stated. Lo, "Elohim [gods] came to Abimelech in a dream" (xx, 3) and warned him of the error of his way; and "the gods [ha- elohim] said unto him in the dream" (xx, 6). Being a heathen, Abimelech would hardly dream of foreign Hebrew gods; they were clearly the same elohim with which he was familiar. Abimelech was scared sick; but Abraham "prayed unto THE GODS [ha-elohim], and elohim healed Abimelech" (xx, 17).

    In Genesis xxii, 1, "it came to pass that the gods [ha-elohim] tempted Abraham" -- as he dreamed -- to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice; and Abraham (xxii, 3) rose up and took Isaac and "went unto the place which THE GODs [ha-elohim] told him"; but fortunately at the critical moment (xxii, 11) "an angel of Yahveh" called out and checked his hand from the human sacrifice. When Isaac came to die, and Jacob, disguised to feel like Esau, came in to receive the stolen blessing, Isaac said: "You smell like a field which Yahveh has blessed" (xxvii, 27); "may THE GODS [ha-elohim] give thee," etc. (xxvii, 28). Then, in chapter xxviii, Isaac further says to Jacob: "And El-shaddai [God my Daemon] bless thee" (xxviii, 3); "mayst thou inherit the land which elohim [gods] gave unto Abraham" (xxviii, 4). Here, again, throughout, is the plural, "THE GODS," (always rendered "God") and a fairly clear distinction is always made between the particular El, Yahveh, and the plural Elohim, gods in general.

    Yet a little more, "to make assurance doubly sure" that the God of the Hebrews was "THE GODS" of the other heathens among whom they lived. Jacob had played his notorious cattle-breeding tricks on his heathen father-in-law Laban, who got angry and broke up the family arrangements. Thereupon "an angel Of THE GODS [ha-elohim]" (Gen. xxxi, 11), spoke to Jacob in a dream; and said: "I am THE GOD of Beth-el [ha-el-Beth-el]" (xxxi, 13), and advised him to take secret leave of Laban, and return to his own country; and Jacob's wives, who were plain Chaldee heathens, said to him, "all that elohim [gods] said unto thee, do" (xxxi, 16). Then Rachel, one of his heathen wives, daughter of the heathen Laban "stole the teraphim [phallic idols] which belonged to her father" (xxxi, 19) and the Jacob family fled. Laban pursued after them for a week before he caught them; and "elohim [gods] came upon Laban the Syrian in a dream, and said," etc. (xxxi, 24). And Laban said to Jacob: "Why hast thou stolen my GODS [elohim]?" (xxxi, 30); and Jacob told Laban to search for them, and said: "Whoever hath THY GODS [elohim] shall not live" (xxxi, 32). Laban searched, but Rachel had hidden the idols, and Laban could not find them. After a quarrel between them, Jacob invoked "THE GODS" (elohe) of his father Abraham for making peace between them; and he set up a phallic mazzebah ("pillar") for a testimonial (xxxi, 45), and invoked the GODS (elohe) of Abraham, Nabor, etc., to "judge between us" (xxxi, 53). Then Jacob went on his way, "and angels Of THE GODS met him" (xxxii, 1), and Jacob called them "the hosts of THE GODS" (xxxii, 2). Thus all through these chapters and following ones, we find nothing but elohim, ha-elohim and elohe (gods) for heathen Laban's teraphim-gods and Jacob's gods alike.

    At Jabbok Jacob fought with a stranger, who asked him his name; and the stranger changed Jacob's name to Israel, for "thou hast fought with GODS [elohim] and with men" (Gen. xxxii, 28); and Jacob called the place Peni-el ("face-of-God"; xxxii, 31), for, he said, "I have seen GODS [elohim] face to face." Jacob erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel (xxxiii, 20) -- "GOD OF THE GODS of Israel" -- positive proof of belief in a plurality of gods.

    In chapter xxxv the plurality of GODS, Hebrew and "strange" is further clearly shown: "Elohim [gods] said to Jacob, Go to Beth-el, and make there an altar unto THE GOD [ha-el] who appeared to thee when thou fleddest" (xxxv, 1); then "Jacob said unto his household, Put away the strange Gods [elohe] which are in your midst" (xxxv, 2); and "I will make there an altar to THE GOD [ha-el] who," etc. (xxxv, 3); and "they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods [elohe]" (xxxv, 4); and Jacob came to Beth-el and built an altar which he called "El-bethel, because there the gods [ha-elohim] appeared [Heb., were revealed] unto him" (xxxv, 7). Thus distinction is clearly made between a particular el (god), and the generality of elohim or elohe, (gods) common to the heathen peoples of those parts.

    Pharaoh dreamed a dream, and called on Joseph to interpret it. This "baal of dreams" (dream-master), as his brothers called him (Gen. xxxvii, 19), said to Pharaoh: "What ha-elohim [the gods] is about to do, he has told Pharaoh" (Gen. xli, 25); and "the thing is settled by ha-elohim" [the gods; xli, 28]; and "ha-elohim [the gods] is hastening to do it" (xli, 33). Pharaoh certainly knew of no Hebrew only-one God, but all the gods of Egypt, and of them clearly he spoke, saying to his servants: "Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom is the spirit of elohim? [gods; xli, 38]"; and to Joseph he said: "Forasmuch as elohim has shewed thee all this" (xli, 39). The elohim of Pharaoh and the ha-elohim of Joseph were clearly one and the same gods to whom they both appealed. To his brothers Joseph said: "It was not you that sent me hither, but ha-elohim [the gods]" (Gen. xlv, 8); and "elohim [gods] has made me lord [adon] of all Egypt" (xlv, 9).

    That the Egyptian Pharaohs by elohim meant only their own myriad gods is made evident by the incident of 430 years later, when the Pharaoh of that time commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill all the male Hebrew children as they were born; and it is twice said, "but the midwives feared ha-elohim" (the gods; Ex. i, 17, 21). Surely these were none other than the gods of Egypt, for after 430 years in Egypt the Hebrew slaves knew of no other gods; even Moses knew not Yahveh and had to ask his name; and for centuries, down to the time of Ezekiel, "they did not forsake ha-elohim [the gods] of Egypt" (Ezek. xx, 8). It cannot be gainsaid that elohim is plural, and means and reveals more gods than one, wherever used either of Hebrew ha-elohim or of ha-elohim of Egypt and other heathen lands round about Israel.

    PLURALITY OF GODS BETRAYED

    Plural Nouns and Plural Verbs

    All through the Book of Genesis we see "the-gods" of the ancient Hebrews, who are throughout just like the-gods of their heathen neighbors. It is but fair to say, for what it is worth, that the verbs used, for the most part, in the Hebrew texts with this plural elohim are generally in the singular number. The verb- forms "am," "is", "are," "was," "were," and such forms of the present and imperfect tenses of the verb "to be" are not used in Hebrew, as any one may see by glancing down any page of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, where these words are always written in italics, signifying that they do not occur in the original.

    But the actual verb plural-form (which in Hebrew is the tiny vav -- "u" -- tacked on the end, as we add "s" in English to form the plural of nouns), although mostly missing, is a number of times to be found, and is undeniable proof of the plurality of ha-elohim. Father Abraham himself avows this plurality: "When elohim [gods] caused [plural: hith-u] me to wander from my father's house" (Gen. xx, 13). Jacob built an altar at Luz, "and called the place El- bethel"; because there ha-elohim were revealed [plural: nigl-u] unto him" (Gen. x-xxv, 7). And David makes the selfsame open avowal of the plural gods of Israel: "Israel, whom gods [elohim] went [plural: balk-u] to redeem ... from the nations and their gods [elohim]" (2 Sam. vii, 23).

    The law says: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut. xix, 15). Here then is the fulfillment of the law: three witnesses, of the chiefest of Israel, have declared by inspiration the plurality of the gods of Israel. But there is more textual proof of plurality of the-gods of Israel. Moses uses the plural adjective with the plural noun elohim: "hath heard the voice of the living gods [elohim hayyim]" (Deut. v, 26; Heb. text, v, 23). And twice David threatens Goliath for defying "the armies of the living gods" (elohim hayyim; I Sam. xvii, 26, 36). Here we have six times the textual admission of the plurality of elohim; the editorial blue- pencil overlooked the little "u" plural-sign of the Hebrew verbs and the unobtrusive "im" of the adjective; as, on the recently discovered throne of Tut-ankh-Amen, the zealous orthodox priests of the king undertook to change the numerous heretical mono-theistic Aten-signs blazoned thereon to Amen-signs of the orthodox faith, but in an instance or two overlooked the Aten-sign left unchanged through the ages, a silent but potent witness to the "One-God" heresy of Amenhotep IV and the youthful Tut-ankh-Amen, before he was forced by the priests back into the prevalent polytheism.

    The "Plural of Dignity"

    The apologists for the use of the plural, elohim and elohe, reason that this is a "plural of dignity" -- a sort of divine "editorial we"; they even go to the length of saying that elohim connotes the awful sense of "Godhead." If so, there were scores of pagan god-heads-elohim.

    But when the Hebrew Deity Yahveh alone speaks or is particularly spoken of, there is no hiding behind the anonymous "editorial plural," but always forthright "I" (Heb., ani, anoki), or the singular El (God), or the personal name "Yahweh." A few instances out of many hundreds must suffice.

    Time and again the chief tribal Baal says, "Anoki El" and "Anoki Yahveh," "Anoki El-shaddai" (Gen. xvii, 1; Ex. iii, 6); "Anoki ha-el beth-el (I am the God of Beth-el)" (Gen. xxxi, 13); "Anoki El, and there are no other elohim" (Isa. xlvi, 9); "I am El" (Isa. xlv, 22). Yahveh descended in a cloud upon Sinai and proclaimed: "Yahveh, Yahveh El" (Ex. xxxiv, 5-6). Moses often quotes Yahveh as saying: "Thou shalt worship no other El: for Yahveh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous El" (Ex. xxxiv, 14; xx, 5; Deut. iv, 24; v, 9; et passim). Again, "There is none like El" (Deut. xxxiii, 26); "This is my El" (Ex. xv, 2). Hagar said: "Thou art a god [El] of seeing" (Gen. xvi, 13). Balaam said to Balak: "El is not a man [ish], that he should lie, neither the son of man [ben adam], that he should repent" (Num. xxiii, (Num. xxiii, 19). "God [El] who brought them forth" (Num. xxiii, 22); "When El does this" (Num. xxiv, 23); "Who hears the words of El" (Num. xxiv, 4); "El is my salvation; Yah Yahveh is my strength" (Isa. xii, 2); "Verily, thou art an El that hidest thyself" (Isa. xlv, 15). Joshua says: "Hereby ye shall know that El is among you" (Josh. iii, 10).

    This usage of El for a particular God, Hebrew or other, and of elohim and elohe for gods indiscriminately, as in hundreds of instances in this chapter and elsewhere, quite explodes the pious notions of an "editorial we" and "plural of dignity," and demonstrates the common polytheism of Israel and their neighbor heathens.

    End of quote



    the potential for translator's fraud as well as the probability that translation to modern languages takes place within currently accepted social-religious norms. One thing I have noted about my JPS Tanakh is that they have translated errors in the received text faithfully, unlike the redactionist NWT. The Bible is a fascinating cultural product and has in many ways become more interesting to me than it ever was when I was a Witness.

    Dave

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Dave,

    I fully agree with your well-balanced presentation and conclusions. Having worked during many years in a Bible translation Committee I can testify that many factors, besides scholarly exegesis, are involved in the translation of so-called "difficult passages" such as the "polytheistic slips" in the OT, especially the publishers' concern not to disturb the (monotheistic) reader (and customer). The final translation there is often the result of tough negotiation.

    As you have certainly noticed, the author of your quote finally admits the difference in number in the Hebrew verbs, but doesn't make clear that it rules out the real plural which he claimed for Genesis 1:1 a few paragraphs before... I suppose that this is less than obvious for English readers because there is no morphological difference between singular and plural in the English preterit (he or they created), which is not the case in Hebrew (or French, for that matter). But otherwise he makes some pretty good points.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I like independent translations of individual books - like Robert Alter's version of Genesis or Scheindlin's version of Job.

    Slim

  • Terry
    Terry

    You can think that Mein Kampf stinks, is dangerous and shouldn't be translated. This of course has nothing to do with the question whether Mein Kampf can be translated or is more or less accurately translated. But you can also think anything related to Mein Kampf shouldn't even be discussed.

    You seem to be taking the higher censorship stance on everything pertaining to the Bible and religion... as you are not in a position to rule it out, hijacking is the second best choice.

    Okay, I agree with you.

    I came in sideways and ignore the topic specifically.

    My bad.

    Thanks for straightening me out. I respect your patience and acumen.

    T.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    I like the NWT the best. I also enjoy the"amplified",

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    I find it amusing when people force the narrow English concept and definition of God and gods and Gods upon ancient Israel's concept of elohim and all its variations as they are expressed in the ot in the hebrew language and idiom. Very funny

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit