[subego]

Carried over from a tangent which began in this thread.

---

I thought reposting these quotations (Genesis 1:12) would be useful

Originally Posted by RSV

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Originally Posted by NASB

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Originally Posted by KJV

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

---

Back to discussion!

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I think you've got it backwards. The NASB has been modified for ease of reading whereas the RSV has sacrificed readability for a more literal, word-for-word translation of the source texts. The folks who publish the NASB even say this on their website.

Originally Posted by The Lockman Foundation

"The updated NASB refines the differences in style between the ancient languages and current English. In the process, Old English "thees," "thys," and "thous," archaic vocabulary, and sentences beginning with "And" have been updated for better English, while verses with difficult word order were restructured."

Emphasis is mine.

As for me, I like the fact that the RSV is more "difficult" to read. I find it enjoyable to come across a phrase or word I kinda/sorta understand and have to do some research on.

I could be wrong here, but what you are emphasizing is an admission they have to make in support of the claim (made on the same page) they provide “the most literally accurate English translation” of the Bible. This goes unsaid in other translations because it is assumed.

The NASB is decidedly not easy to read. It's stilted and awkward, as the only time they alter word order is when not to do so would make the sentence incomprehensible. Likewise, I have an appreciation for archaic language, but the translation choices for the RSV were made in light of the (at the time) well entrenched KJV. "Firmament" is evocative, but "expanse" strikes me as a more apt modern translation of a word in common usage by a 11th century B.C. Israelite.

I also thought it was notable the NASB has 30 less instances of the word "marriage" than the RSV. You can see in the example from Genesis 1:12, the RSV is more wordy. As I understand it, those words were added by the translators to make it less stilted and awkward. As I also understand it, the NASB refrains from this as much as possible.

Full disclosure: for various reasons, I'm an order of magnitude more interested in the Old Testament, so any statement I've made here applies most directly to that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise, I have an appreciation for archaic language, but the translation choices for the RSV were made in light of the (at the time) well entrenched KJV. "Firmament" is evocative, but "expanse" strikes me as a more apt modern translation of a word in common usage by a 11th century B.C. Israelite.

I wanted to, umm... expand on this idea a bit.

If, like myself, one is not an expert on Biblical Hebrew, this sort of thing is a obviously a judgement call.

To my ears, "firmament" pretty much exclusively refers to a concept of "that which is created by God". I'd bet the only reason this word still exists in common usage is because it was in the KJV, and takes much of its meaning in a modern context from that usage.

If the word being translated from Biblical Hebrew refers to that same concept (i.e. "that which is created by God") then "firmament" is a good choice. If the same word is used in other contexts to mean the far less divine concept of "expanse", I think "expanse" is a better choice if the goal is for literal accuracy.

The thing is, "expanse" is evocative too, but it's evocative of something different, and implies the ancient Israelites were actually saying something vastly different than what is implied by "firmament".

It should be reemphasized: lots of conjecture here on my part.

[Laminar]

What, The Message isn't good enough for historically-minded Bible study?

God spoke: "Earth, green up! Grow all varieties
of seed-bearing plants,
Every sort of fruit-bearing tree."
And there it was.
Earth produced green seed-bearing plants,
all varieties,
And fruit-bearing trees of all sorts.
God saw that it was good.

[subego]

I would have stuck with "herb" for "green".

[Big Mac]

Expanse is preferable, but firmament isn't that bad, being from the Latin firmare for fixed/settled. If you're really interested in the meanings of the words from the Hebrew Scriptures, you can start learning the Hebrew. It isn't that hard a language to self-study. There's also free access to concordances online, which is helpful. There's a lot going on in the verses of Genesis. You may want to check out these pages from the Guide for the Perplexed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Expanse is preferable, but firmament isn't that bad, being from the Latin firmare for fixed/settled. If you're really interested in the meanings of the words from the Hebrew Scriptures, you can start learning the Hebrew. It isn't that hard a language to self-study. There's also free access to concordances online, which is helpful. There's a lot going on in the verses of Genesis. You may want to check out these pages from the Guide for the Perplexed.

Thank you for the response. I was very much hoping you'd comment one way or another.

Just bringing up the Latin root puts the word in a different context for me. That's why I prefer the NASB, because I don't necessarily trust myself to have the linguistic chops to be able to place all my focus on interpretation, which is the main reason I read it in the first place.

As you point out though, a far superior way to do this would be to learn Hebrew. I wouldn't have considered it to be a suitable subject for self study. I think the non-Roman alphabet throws people off. I used to consider Classical Greek to be in the same category.

Not that I know Classical Greek, I've just been informed it is well within the capabilities of someone who can learn Latin.

Which I don't know either, but at least assume I could.

I do have an interlinear translation of Caesar's Gallic War which I intend to use for that purpose some day. I originally stuck my toe into Latin by getting a Loeb copy of Plutarch's Lives (the one with Sulla, because that's who I was most interested in).

Of course, if moron had thought about it for five seconds, it would have occurred to him Plutarch wrote in Greek.

[Uriel]

I recommend you at least pick up a parallel bible. It's a bible that contains 4 different translations side by side, that's what we use at seminary when we aren't reading in the original languages.

[subego]

An excellent idea, but you've just cubed the number of choices. Any suggestions?

This doesn't seem too bad, but has only three.

http://www.amazon.com/Interlinear-Bi...dp/1565639774/

[Chuckit]

If you don't mind reading online, I find Blue Letter Bible to be pretty good. It includes a lot of versions, including the original languages and Latin, and it has a concordance for Greek and Hebrew.

[subego]

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you don't mind reading online, I find Blue Letter Bible to be pretty good. It includes a lot of versions, including the original languages and Latin, and it has a concordance for Greek and Hebrew.

Great suggestion. I didn't know about this site. Thanks!


PS: Happen to know of a site like this that covers the teachings of the various schools of thought in Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism? (I am looking for something that contains "primary source" material along with well-respected analysis and interpretation. Something more than yo would just find on Wikipedia.)

[Big Mac]

If you're looking for a "kosher" translation of the Hebrew Scriptures online, there's the free Judaica Press TaNaKh. Offline, check out Artscroll, which produces the texts that are standard in many synagogues.

Caveat: Even the best translations often miss Hebrew grammatical nuances in certain passages.

[Salty]

Honestly for me I prefer reading the NIV and if a passage doesn't seem clear or I'm really curious about it's meaning I grab a few commentaries, start doing word studies, and start asking my non-Christian linguist friend what a word REALLY means (I've found even Lexacons are far too bias for my taste.)

[Shaddim]

I'm quite fond of The Living Torah by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and for every-day use I also enjoy the Lamsa text.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Honestly for me I prefer reading the NIV and if a passage doesn't seem clear or I'm really curious about it's meaning I grab a few commentaries, start doing word studies, and start asking my non-Christian linguist friend what a word REALLY means (I've found even Lexacons are far too bias for my taste.)

Linguist or archaic languages expert?

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Caveat: Even the best translations often miss Hebrew grammatical nuances in certain passages.

I can't remember where I read it off the top of my head, but I remember reading about a distinction between English only translations of the bible and English translations that go along with the original Hebrew. The basic point was that in an English only bible the English is all you have and so the job of being true to the original text is much more difficult and complex whereas with Hebrew/English versions the English is meant more as a supplemental translation and not a replacement. In other words the English translation can take more interpretive liberty because the original is right there for you to compare it with.

[lpkmckenna]

I recently read Robert Alter's "The Five Books of Moses." An excellent translation by a real scholar. "The Hidden Book in the Bible" by Friedman is also a great read, with a novel thesis.

Myself, I'm planning to buy the Anchor Bible soon; expensive, but it's the only way to stay on top of current bible scholarship.

Months ago, I bought a copy of the Zondervan NIV study bible, but I wasn't aware then what an evangelical sellout Zondervan was. Money wasted. Even my old copy of The Good News Bible was better.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Happen to know of a site like this that covers the teachings of the various schools of thought in Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism? (I am looking for something that contains "primary source" material along with well-respected analysis and interpretation. Something more than yo would just find on Wikipedia.)

Great Buddhist site: Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Great Buddhist site: Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism

Oooh. Interesting and informative site. (especially considering that Theravada Buddhism was my top score on the religious belief test.)

Many Thanks!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Months ago, I bought a copy of the Zondervan NIV study bible, but I wasn't aware then what an evangelical sellout Zondervan was. Money wasted.

Care to expand on that?

I've got that particular Bible, and it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary to me...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you don't mind reading online, I find Blue Letter Bible to be pretty good. It includes a lot of versions, including the original languages and Latin, and it has a concordance for Greek and Hebrew.

This is excellent. I can't believe I hadn't latched onto this. Thank you Chuckit.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Months ago, I bought a copy of the Zondervan NIV study bible, but I wasn't aware then what an evangelical sellout Zondervan was. Money wasted. Even my old copy of The Good News Bible was better.

The NIV is a pretty poor translation. Too much effort was made to make it easy to read and a lot of original meanings were lost.

But calling Zondervan an "evangelical sellout" is a bit of a redundancy isn't it? Any company publishing a bible is evangelical by it's very nature.

[Doofy]

YLT anyone?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The NIV is a pretty poor translation. Too much effort was made to make it easy to read and a lot of original meanings were lost.

It's a lot closer than the most popular translation.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Care to expand on that?

I've got that particular Bible, and it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary to me...

I'm not back at home for a few days, so I don't have my Zondervan NIV in front of me. What's sticking in my brain right now is way their footnotes "explain" the text in a way that's dismissive of current scholarship and favors exclusively Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. I'll get back to you with some examples.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's a lot closer than the most popular translation.

???? I never said it was ????



It is also closer than The Message.

[Chuckit]

My point was that for most people, the NIV is a huge improvement.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

YLT anyone?

I had never heard of it. Right up my alley.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm home tonight and I've borrowed my mom's New American Bible, which is definitely the most scholarly bible I've ever seen.

[OldManMac]

I just started reading Jesus Interrupted; Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them), by Bart Ehrman. He is the James A Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, at the University of North Carolina, and has written over twenty books. He points out that the NT is full of contradictory views of who Jesus was. He also reveals that many of the books were written in the names of the Apostles, by Christians who lived decades later, and that central Christian doctrines were the inventions of still later theologians. Should be a fascinating read!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm not back at home for a few days, so I don't have my Zondervan NIV in front of me. What's sticking in my brain right now is way their footnotes "explain" the text in a way that's dismissive of current scholarship and favors exclusively Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. I'll get back to you with some examples.

"Current scholarship" meaning what? Secular thought?

How else would a Christian interpret the BIble for a Christian audience but through Christian perspective? Are you wanting a Bible that has footnotes telling you "this verse could mean x, y, or z, and you can pick which one you're most comfortable with"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I just started reading Jesus Interrupted; Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them), by Bart Ehrman. He is the James A Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, at the University of North Carolina, and has written over twenty books. He points out that the NT is full of contradictory views of who Jesus was. He also reveals that many of the books were written in the names of the Apostles, by Christians who lived decades later, and that central Christian doctrines were the inventions of still later theologians. Should be a fascinating read!

I hope he didn't rip Pelikan off wholesale and gave him proper attribution.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Linguist or archaic languages expert?

Linguist. Last time we got to hang out was a while ago but she was in the process of learning I think at least ten languages at the time she's probably done a few more by now. She was pretty good at ancient greek (not just biblical which is a much smaller subset) she had done a bit of Hebrew, swaheely (Yes I'm pretty sure I butchered that), german, french, spanish, japanese, icelandic, and a few more that I can't remember. She obviously hadn't mastered all of them yet, but she was pretty damned good with ancient greek already.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I hope he didn't rip Pelikan off wholesale and gave him proper attribution.

It looks like Pelikan isn't the only one with a knowledge of the history of Christianity and the bible. Nice of you to simply jump in and attempt to diminish someone's work without knowing who he is.

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

I had never heard of it. Right up my alley.

IMO, a literal translation is just a placebo for people who want to feel like they're reading the original language but can't be bothered to learn it well enough to get the actual benefits of doing so.

The problem with a literal translation is that, while it can help to remove some bias and other junk inserted by the translator, it's fundamentally a flawed concept. The idea that words have an inherent meaning that can be literally translated free of context or human understanding is quite naive. This is part of why human language comprehension for computers is such a tricky task. The same sentence can mean totally different things at different times, and these subtleties can't always be translated literally from one language to another ("yeah, right").

It also removes a lot of the feeling of the original text. Jesus didn't speak in weird, broken-English phrases. Can you imagine wanting to read any book written natively in the YLT style?

Nothing against people who like YLT. It's an interesting reference work. I just don't want to see people taken in by the title to think it's something it never could be.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It looks like Pelikan isn't the only one with a knowledge of the history of Christianity and the bible. Nice of you to simply jump in and attempt to diminish someone's work without knowing who he is.

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He isn't breaking new ground, many agnostic scholars have made a living publishing criticism and debating the authenticity of scripture. Another example of this is John Shelby Spong, as heretical a Theologian as there has ever been. Even Pelikan, although a believer, was very critical of modern Christian doctrine. Several times he asserted that the Church, with a few exceptions, was no longer a part of the body of Christ at all.

Listen, I'm not trying to be dismissive of their efforts. I also have voiced similar concerns since adolescence. In fact, in college I started studying religious texts as a skeptic. But, in the course of that work something very profound happened, the very thing I was trying to discredit discovered me.

Within the layers of editing, and centuries of blatant ecclesiastical obfuscation, is a very profound truth that isn't evident on the surface. To reach it, you have to pull in all the apocryphal and so-called heretical manuscripts, and sift out the centuries of manipulation. After that, you find the teachings of Jesus to be much more radical, and even destructive to religious indoctrination. Was his goal to destroy the "establishment"? What were his views towards legislating morality? Christians spent centuries building a mystery to suit their needs, and now there's very little left of the original intent. However, it's still there.

I'm sure Ehrman is a fine fellow, and he's doing what he feels is right to uncover the broken nature of Christianity (and establish a legacy for himself), and I can't fault him for that. However, I have no doubt that during the course of his life he'll discover, as have so many scholars in the past, that the wall he's tearing down is himself.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He isn't breaking new ground, many agnostic scholars have made a living publishing criticism and debating the authenticity of scripture. Another example of this is John Shelby Spong, as heretical a Theologian as there has ever been. Even Pelikan, although a believer, was very critical of modern Christian doctrine. Several times he asserted that the Church, with a few exceptions, was no longer a part of the body of Christ at all.

Listen, I'm not trying to be dismissive of their efforts. I also have voiced similar concerns since adolescence. In fact, in college I started studying religious texts as a skeptic. But, in the course of that work something very profound happened, the very thing I was trying to discredit discovered me.

Within the layers of editing, and centuries of blatant ecclesiastical obfuscation, is a very profound truth that isn't evident on the surface. To reach it, you have to pull in all the apocryphal and so-called heretical manuscripts, and sift out the centuries of manipulation. After that, you find the teachings of Jesus to be much more radical, and even destructive to religious indoctrination. Was his goal to destroy the "establishment"? What were his views towards legislating morality? Christians spent centuries building a mystery to suit their needs, and now there's very little left of the original intent. However, it's still there.

I'm sure Ehrman is a fine fellow, and he's doing what he feels is right to uncover the broken nature of Christianity (and establish a legacy for himself), and I can't fault him for that. However, I have no doubt that during the course of his life he'll discover, as have so many scholars in the past, that the wall he's tearing down is himself.

If you knew anything about him, you'd know that he was devout Christian for most of his life, not an agnostic scholar. You'd know that he has several advanced degrees in religious studies, and that he's widely regarded as a religious scholar. He already has a legacy for himself as such, having written twenty books on religion and religious studies. He's not some new kid on the block.

Something that does not exist can not discover anything.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

"Current scholarship" meaning what? Secular thought?

Believing or not, there are many believers doing "current scholarship."

How else would a Christian interpret the BIble for a Christian audience but through Christian perspective? Are you wanting a Bible that has footnotes telling you "this verse could mean x, y, or z, and you can pick which one you're most comfortable with"?

How about a reading based on what the original writers probably meant, as opposed to what later readers thought it meant?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

He also reveals that many of the books were written in the names of the Apostles, by Christians who lived decades later...

Not exactly. The four Gospels were untitled. The names were applied to them in the scond century, using some good guesses.

For example, the Gospel of Matthew was so named that because it includes a "correction": that the tax collector Levi and the apostle Matthew were the same person. The church fathers assumed that only the real Matthew himself could have known that.

The Gospel of John actually says that it was written by a follower of John, not John himself.

Correction: the gospel of John says it was written by a follower of the "beloved disciple," which later Christians guessed was John. Current scholarship indicates that the beloved disciple was actually Lazarus, and the narrative makes much more sense if you read it that way.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

If you knew anything about him, you'd know that he was devout Christian for most of his life, not an agnostic scholar. You'd know that he has several advanced degrees in religious studies, and that he's widely regarded as a religious scholar. He already has a legacy for himself as such, having written twenty books on religion and religious studies. He's not some new kid on the block.

Something that does not exist can not discover anything.

I don't expect you to understand, but perhaps at some point you will.

I did go looking around in my library and I do have one of this books, Lost Scriptures. After thumbing through it I do recall reading it, it gives a brief synopsis of many apocryphal and gnostic texts (several of which are deemed heretical by most denominations). Also, I think I may have read his commentary on the Gospel of Judas while I was at Vanderbilt, but I'm not absolutely sure. I can say I'd place him in a higher category than Elaine Pagels, if that makes you feel better.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't expect you to understand, but perhaps at some point you will.

I did go looking around in my library and I do have one of this books, Lost Scriptures. After thumbing through it I do recall reading it, it gives a brief synopsis of many apocryphal and gnostic texts (several of which are deemed heretical by most denominations). Also, I think I may have read his commentary on the Gospel of Judas while I was at Vanderbilt, but I'm not absolutely sure. I can say I'd place him in a higher category than Elaine Pagels, if that makes you feel better.

I don't expect you to understand either, but perhaps some day you will as well. Fairy tales are no basis to live life by; they're entertaining, but they shouldn't be taken seriously.

[subego]

In case of discussion other than Bible translations, click button.

[stumblinmike]

I wonder what to expect from Morris Cerrullo's "Financial Breakthrough Spiritual Warfare Bible". I believe, I believe!!!!

[lpkmckenna]

I forgot about this thread. Lemme go get my Bibles...

[Shaddim]

Bored?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Expanse is preferable, but firmament isn't that bad, being from the Latin firmare for fixed/settled.

I don't think either word works. The Torah uses extremely plain words, and a proper translation should match that when possible.

Robert Alter's "Five Books of Moses" uses "vault," with the following explanation: "the Hebrew raki'a suggests a hammered-out slab, not necessarily arched, but the English architectural term with its celestial associations created by poetic tradition is otherwise appropriate." See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_(architecture)

The NAB uses "dome" which I think is better than firmament or expanse, but the "vault of heaven" holding back the rain is a very vivid image, and vivid imagery is very Torah-like.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Months ago, I bought a copy of the Zondervan NIV study bible, but I wasn't aware then what an evangelical sellout Zondervan was. Money wasted. Even my old copy of The Good News Bible was better.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Care to expand on that? I've got that particular Bible, and it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary to me...

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The NIV is a pretty poor translation. Too much effort was made to make it easy to read and a lot of original meanings were lost. But calling Zondervan an "evangelical sellout" is a bit of a redundancy isn't it? Any company publishing a bible is evangelical by it's very nature.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm not back at home for a few days, so I don't have my Zondervan NIV in front of me. What's sticking in my brain right now is way their footnotes "explain" the text in a way that's dismissive of current scholarship and favors exclusively Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. I'll get back to you with some examples.

Ok, here goes...

From ebible.org, God punishes idolators in Romans 1:24-27 "Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error."

The NIV commentary says: "Homosexual practice is sinful in God's eyes. The OT also condemns the practice."

What's interesting here is that NIV's commentary is irrelevant. What someone like me would ask is "did Paul really think that people are homosexuals because God cursed them to be homosexual as punishment?" Because that's exactly what Paul's words say.

Instead of "For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions," the NAB has "God handed them over to degrading passions" and NIV has "God gave them over to shameful lusts." Incredibly, the NIV "explains" this with the commentary "God allowed sin to run its course as an act of judgement."

Sorry NIV, but I'm not illiterate. That's not what it says and not what it means. It clearly says that God deliberately placed homosexual passions into the idolators as punishment, not that God merely allowed it to occur.

It wouldn't be surprising that Paul would understand homosexuality this way. He likely viewed God's "hardening of Pharaoh's heart" in Exodus as an example of God deliberately making people behave unethically.

I'm looking for more...