----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Bible translations Re: Tragedy in Israel
> At 08:00 AM 12/31/01 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: > >I'm wondering what would make that one the single most accurate > >translation, myself. > > Actually, it was a slight dig at Dan M. to see if he's reading..... guess > not. ;-) I was away at my parent's and sisters. I know that it is not reccomended at the seminaries I am familar with, neither reformed nor Catholic. > > For one, The New American Bible is a Catholic Bible, which means that it > includes all the books of The Old Testament in the "Bible" that Jesus used > (most Protestants do not include several books that were removed by Martin > Luther from the Bible.) > > More importantly, though, one of my professors in college worked on The New > American translation and humbly praised it as the best Bible translation > currently available - mostly for its combination of accuracy and respecting > the poetic intent of the original. In fact, he went so far as to say that > he only disagreed with *one* word in the entire translation - the famous > passage in Isaiah "Let this be a sign to you, a virgin shall conceive and > bear a son, and his name shall be Immanuel." (or something very close to > that) My professor argues that even though "virgin" is a perfectly > legitimate translation of the Hebrew word used, he believe that "young > woman" would be a more accurate translation. > Well, he certainly is not unbiased. :-) I've heard the Oxford Annotated (with apocrapha) quoted as the best from most sources. Jerusalem/New Jerusalem is generally considered to be the more scholarly Catholic bible. Its interesting that most non-Catholic bibles are starting to sneak the books taken out by the Westminster confession. Also, its worth noting that the first King James bible had them in. Dan M.
