Dude, you have to understand Jason's motivation for writing that book and HIS inherant biasis.
Besides, it's just one man's opinion, take it for what it is worth and realise that it DOESN'T carry any more weight than anyone elses.
What is the most secularly acclaimed Bible translation?
by sabastious 86 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Will Power
wannabe.... regarding the book you cite, the chapter I found most interesting was the criticism of using the word Jehovah in the new testament where it should not be.
If this is where your JW understanding took a turn I can see why. Reading the passages without the J word gives each a whole new meaning that directly contradicts their unique doctrine - wonder why it's unique!
wp
-
wannabefree
PSacramento ... I understand, my point was how even the NW took on a different meaning for me once the rosey colored glasses of Watchtower bias were removed. This was profound for me as I wasn't trying to prove JW's wrong, my intention was the opposite ... yet it didn't work out that way.
So, in short, NAB might be a good read. But at the same time, BeDuhn rates that one up there with NW. .... or is he perhaps biased about NAB?
(edit - and of course when I suggest the NW, it is only the study edition with references, which are a very important part to find balance)
-
wannabefree
Will Power ... yes, that was major ... surpisingly, so was his take on John 1:1 ... he touts NW as more accurate rendering the term "a god" better than as "God" ... and of course, the JW will stop at that, but his reasoning also shows that it is clumsy to render it that way and he would believe it better to be translated as "divine", which to me, makes the passage more neutral to either side rather than being a proof text.
-
PSacramento
If I recall correctly, and I may be mistaken, Jason doesn't prescribe to Jesus being God or divine in God's nature ( or something like that), so the NWT that renders John1:1 "a" god was, in his view, more correct.
Some of his issues with the NRSV I think have to do with its "liberal" use of gender neutral interpretations but to be honest, I think that the NRSV does the correct thing in making it clear when "brothers" means "brothers and sisters", though I think they should have bracketed it as opposed to replaced it.
You will never find a bible translation without its critics, that is impossible.
We all have our views of what a translation should say/mean, even more so if we are scholars of the bibel or languages.
By "WE" I mean THEM not ME ;)
-
digderidoo
I read the NIV bible. It reads more smoothly than others for me. I think there's bias in all translations, so it's difficult to try to figure out which one is the most accurate.
Paul
-
jam
blue bible on the net is good. Check it out
-
brotherdan
I think the most universally recognized bible translation that holds the highest critical acclaim is the NASB. I've got a GREAT John Macarthur NASB study bible. The NKJ is also great. However, remember to always refer to different translations when searching for the meaning of specific scripture. We all know that bible translations are not inspired. But we CAN get the correct sense of many scriptures by comparing the different translations.
-
cyberjesus
I had the same question. The quest for the most accurate bible its what led me to research it, research its origins and ultimately not read it at all.
-
Wonderment
One big mistake many ex JWs make is to drop the New World Translation at their exit of the Borg. I am telling you this, the New World Translation is a fine translation. Don´t believe all this crap that no one there knew no Hebrew or Greek. Don´t believe this lie perpetraded over and over again from the Walsh case. A lot of people here are so gullilble. I have dozens of translations, perhaps over a hundred of them, and the NW excels many of them in a lot of places. Oh, I hear grumblings that the NW is biased. Hello! They all are! You think that KJV or NIV, or Valera version in Spanish is not biased? They are all slanted! They all reflect their doctrinal bias in their versions. And in many ways they show more tampering with the originals than the NW.
I, too, have been a victim of shunning by my family and hundreds of "friends." I have a lot of hurt from the Borg. But I have confidence that the NW and the Kingdom Interlinear are good bibles. In fact, the best interlinear in the market of so many are the Kingdom Interlinear and the Paul R. McReynols (Word Study Greek-English New Testament) followed by the Diaglott and the Concordant Greek text. The other interlinears are almost useless. I am trying to be as fair as possible. The NW Reference Bible does not make for pleasant reading, but damn, it is a great study bible. Their two bibles is the best thing to come out of the Society. I can´t say the same thing about some of their other publications. And I can´t stand how the Society distorts the Faithful and Discreet Slave and the House to House expression. Don´t let anger and bad omens from the WT blind you from these two excellent works. I could sit for hours, scripture by scripture, Greek text and all, etc to back up my opinions. I do like most bibles by the way.
Most suspicions by many folks regarding bible versions is unwarranted. And what do I say of all those "critics" about the NW? They are just plain biased opinions. All translations have faults and biases in their text. It comes with the territory.