> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The Fool wrote: > > > > > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > At 08:57 PM 12/27/01 -0600 Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > > >Here are some on-line sources for the Bible: > > > > > > Hey, do not forget the single most accurate translation of the Bible > > that > > > is currently available, The New American: > > > http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ > > > > That is debatable. I'm sure I could find several hundred million poeple > > who don't think so. > > I'm wondering what would make that one the single most accurate > translation, myself. I don't think I know all that much about Bible > translation. My sister expressed the opinion a few years ago that the > best translation was the New Revised Standard Version, and on that > recommendation, I got a copy of that translation. She fulfilled the > requirements for a degree in Religious Studies at Oberlin, so I figure > she's had the opportunity to consider the question. (She got her actual > degree in English. Our mother was paying part of the tuition and > insisted that a degree in Religious Studies wasn't going to be worth > much on a resume.) She's also studied the Koran some, so in the past, > when I've had questions about it, I've gone to her. When did the New > American translation first come out? > > Kneem, do you have an opinion on accuracy of Bible translation? If so, > which version would you pick? Or is there someone or some organization > that you would consider to be an authority and that you would consider > their recommendation?
Yes I am a Geek of All Trades. Hard question to answer. There are many different partial manuscripts, from fragments of the Septuagint, to dead sea scrolls to Codex Leningrad, and the translation of Jerome, to Westcott and Hort, etc. Some manuscripts contradict other manuscripts (the older being more reliable in my opinion), Mark has _Two_ Endings, John 7:53-8:11 doesn't appear in a lot of manuscripts, and there have been verses that were added (as much as 1500 years Later) (1st John 5:7, etcetera). King-James-Onlyism: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/index.html There is a large segment of the population (M*rm*ns, Seventh Day Adventists, and various protestant groups and protestants) that believes that the king james version of the bible the only true version of the bible, innerrant and 'recieved' by the translators. (There have been many revisions of the KJ, SHH don't let them know). "If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me." (I am not kidding). Seventh-day adventists are that way because some of their doctrines are based on errors in the KJ version (spurious verses and mistranslated passages). The book of M*rm*n is basically a chopped up and rearanged version of the king james. Whole passages are verbatim, word for word exact from the king james, including spurious verses like 1st John 5:7. I have seen several times an attempt by King-James-onlyists to discredit various versions by trying to make Westcott and Hort (two translators who cleaned up the greek text, and whose work most translations from the 1880's onward is based) occult figures trying to destroy christianity through mistranslating the bible. King James is Ok for general reading, but not the most scholarly. Other points of contention: The Tetragrammaton [YHVH]. Most if not all but a very few translations have removed the Name of God (Yahweh? Yeheweh? Jehovah (the common English form) came to be because the King James translators mistakenly used the vowel points from 'Elohim') from the text enitirely (or almost entirely like the King James) and replaced it with various versions of 'Lord', 'LORD', 'God', 'GOD', 'LORD GOD', etc. Jehovah means 'Causes to be', but that depends on if JHVH has only two syllables. If it had three syllables then it would be something different (along the lines of: I Was, I Am, I Will Be). Since it occurs more than 3000 times in the Old Testament (and was originally in the New Testament, before the copyists edited it out (there have been fragments of early manuscripts that contained it, mainly the septuagint), and the NT contains many direct quotes from the OT that contain it). People use 'Hallelujah' (also spelled 'Halleluyah' every day, but would be surprised to learn that it means 'praise Jah' (Jah or Yah is a shortend form of JHVH). Ever notice in _The Ten Commandments_ when it is quoting [using the King James] from exodus by the burning bush, it skips a verse? The first part of the Lord's prayer is Jesus asking that God's name be sanctified. Dynamic Equivalence. The replacement in some verses, the word he, man, son, for generic unisex equivalents and other modifications like these. Some translation do this alot. Gehenna. The dump of jerusalem that was despoilt specifically because it was a place where pagan worship had been occuring (by king Josiah). Most translations translate this word as 'Hell', but in actuallity it is a real place. Sheol. Hebrew word meaning ground. Some translations translate this same word, pit, grave, ground, hole, and 'Hell'. In ecclesiates it the place where _everyone_ goes when they die (the grave), a place various Heros from the bible _Wanted to go_ (Job, Jacob, and others). Second and third century christians 'Chritianized' many popular pagan beliefs, which is where the popular portrayal of 'Hell' comes from, from the greek underworld of hades/eletian fields. Even Jesus went there when he died! http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html The Ten Commandments. Catholics use a modified form of the ten commandments, in which they combine Two commandments into one and split one commandment into two. Non inspired books. Catholic versions of the bible contain Apocryphal books (that are not considered to be inspired, but are of note). There are other books not in either cannon that are apocryphal, like the 'Gosphel of Thomas' and the 'Book of Enoch' (a glaring forgery written well after christ). I could go on for another hundred pages, (or if talking about christmas or easter, another 300 pages), but I shall be kind. Based on these criteria, I would go with _The American Standard_ version, which is a redacted version of the King James that fixes most of it's problems. My next choice would be _The Emphatic Diaglot_ (NT only). Then I would go to a Westcot/Hort based translation. You can get a _New World_ translations for free. Gideon bibles are the King James. > The King James is available on-line at > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Bible.html and it's set up > there so you can link to individual verses there from other sites. For > instance, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Luke.html#10:27 takes > you to Luke chapter 10 verse 27. (Also on this site are some original > SF stories; I recommend > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/gpic.html if you're looking > for a short story to read today. It has nothing to do with the Bible, > though, so arguably this recommendation is off-topic for this post.) Nice to know.
