FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2001, 06:01 PM   #11
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by jre:
<STRONG>Rupert Murdoch.</STRONG>
Murdoch owns the sole publishing rights. The copyright is retained by the International Bible Society.

Copyrighting the Word of the Lord! Sounds like Dianetics to me.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 06:16 PM   #12
hezekiah jones
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Post

Quote:
The translation committee sends lesbian Mollenkott the book of Deuteronomy to edit. She comes to Deut. 23:17, which reads, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." The lesbian suggests that they use the word "sodomite" in their translation. So, you can't imagine that, well neither can I. So, she sends it back telling them that "sodomite" should be removed and "temple prostitute" be substituted. Of course, she has no ulterior motive! If you can believe that, you might well believe that elephants can fly.
The NIV: Edited by Sodomites.
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 06:34 PM   #13
Pantera
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart
Posts: 2,431
Cool

Other famous KJV-only advocates include Kent Hovind and Jack Chick. Of course, not all KJV-only types are as rational and reasonable as those two.
Pantera is offline  
Old 10-13-2001, 07:35 PM   #14
HelenM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Post

The KJV is more of a word-for-word translation whereas the NIV translates phrase-by-phrase.

That means that the NIV is more accurate when they correctly perceived the meaning of the original and less accurate when they didn't.

I personally find the NIV annoying because of that extra interpretive layer in there. For example, in Galatians 1 where Paul says "I wish those [troublesome false teachesr] would be cut off" the NIV has "I wish they would be eternally condemned!"

But really the word eternally is not even in there.

Cut off could mean all kinds of things and in no way can we know Paul was referring to some after-death hell scenario for those people...so here the NIV translators egregiously based their translation on their own theology and opinions for no obvious good reason -- 'cut off' would have been fine.

Anyway that is a fine point; in general the KJV and NIV are similarly attempts to be very close to the meaning of the original texts and the NIV being recent is much easier to read than the KJV. Since the KJV has been published lots of words have changed meaning. So I think it's unkind to try to force people to struggle with reading the KJV who can't don't want to. But it's still a 'good' translation, if you're prepared to read it knowing you'll have to look lots of words up because they don't mean what they meant in 1611.

Because the NIV is fairly easy to read and thought relatively accurate by most Christians, it is widely used and has become the best-selling translation of the Bible, overtaking the KJV in sales just a few years ago.

love
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 10-20-2001, 09:27 PM   #15
The Guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 24
Post

I do believe that the NIV translates some passages quite a bit differently than any other versions do. Jeremiah 7:22 seems a little bit less contradictory in the NIV than it does in every other translation I have read.

But the first time I actually suspected the translators of 'covering up' an error was when I read Luke 24:43&44. My NIV study bible breaks the narrative, and places a footnote at the bottom of the page explaining that the rest of the conversation Jesus had with his disciples happened several weeks later, despite having to tamper with the text a bit in order to justify breaking the conversation into two sections. Messing with the text at that point certainly erases an obvious contradiction to the instructions Jesus left for his disciples.

At that point I decided I would never use an NIV to study the bible again.
The Guy is offline  
Old 10-21-2001, 12:33 AM   #16
Nomad
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 410
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by The Guy:

But the first time I actually suspected the translators of 'covering up' an error was when I read Luke 24:43&44. My NIV study bible breaks the narrative, and places a footnote at the bottom of the page explaining that the rest of the conversation Jesus had with his disciples happened several weeks later, despite having to tamper with the text a bit in order to justify breaking the conversation into two sections.
I have the NIV Student's Bible, and I do not have any footnote at all connected with Luke 24:43-44. Are you sure you are talking about the right passage? I checked the following translations available online:

NIV Bible
Luke 24:43-44 and he took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

RSV Bible
Luke 24:43-44 and he took it and ate before them. Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."

NET Bible Luke 24:43 and he took it and ate it in front of them. 24:44 Then (107) he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me (108) in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms (109) must be fulfilled."

I checked notes 107 to 109 and found no mention of a break in the passage of time.

Every translation I have seen says essentially the same thing, so what exactly was the difficulty you saw here? Are you thinking of some other text?

Nomad

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]
Nomad is offline  
Old 10-21-2001, 05:55 PM   #17
The Guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 24
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Nomad:
<STRONG>

I have the NIV Student's Bible, and I do not have any footnote at all connected with Luke 24:43-44. Are you sure you are talking about the right passage? I checked the following translations available online:

I checked notes 107 to 109 and found no mention of a break in the passage of time.

Every translation I have seen says essentially the same thing, so what exactly was the difficulty you saw here? Are you thinking of some other text?

Nomad

</STRONG>
No mistake.

Here is what my NIV study bible has.

Quote:
Luke 24:43 ...And he took it and ate it in their presence.

Jesus appears to the Disciples in Jerusalem

44)He said to them,"This is what I told you while I was still with you...
There is a footnote at the bottom of the page that states:
Quote:
Many days may have elapsed between verses 43 and 44 because Jesus and his followers traveled to Galilee and back before he returned to heaven. In his second book, Acts, Luke makes it clear that Jesus spent 40 days with his disciples between his resurrection and ascension.
The contradiction should be evident between the instructions in Matt and Mark and those in Luke. Matt and Mark have Jesus telling the disciples to return to Galilee, but the narrative in Luke has Jesus instructing the disciples to stay in Jerusalem until pentacost. There is simply no room for any weeks long trip to Galilee and back. A contradiction.

When I noticed the way the NIV starts v44 with "He" and every other translation starts v44 with either an "and" or "then", I wondered if there was any justification for the translators to drop the conjunction or adverb that starts the verse in other translations. So I popped open my transliterate NT and noticed that v44 started with "and", the romanized greek word was 'de', which is a continuing term usually translated as "and" or "then" (I don't read or understand koine greek, so I am at the mercy of lexicons and concordances.), it appears to me that there was no reason to break up the text between those two verses and no reason for not beginning the verse with some word to connect it to the previous sentence which was obviously intended from the writer to be a single conversation.

Reading the preface to NIV offers a clue as to why the translators might favor a less than ordinary choice of words in some instances. They are compromised by their interest in perserving the integrity of scripture.

That is just one of the reasons I will not use the NIV. Their alterations might be subtle, but they are still there.

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: The Guy ]
The Guy is offline  
Old 10-21-2001, 06:16 PM   #18
HelenM
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
Cool

Guy

I know I'm preaching to the choir...but here's my favorite NIV study note:

The passage is:

Quote:
"But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matt 23:8-10
Said by none other than Jesus, in a passage in which he calls the Pharisees hypocrites over and over again.

Anyway the NIV study Bible note says

Quote:
The warning is against seeking titles of honor to foster pride. Obviously, we should avoid unreasonable literalism in applying such commands.


love
Helen
HelenM is offline  
Old 10-21-2001, 07:28 PM   #19
Apikorus
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,396
Post

An amusing factoid regarding the KJV: The KJV always follows the masoretic qere in instances of kethib/qere. Nice to know that Kent Hovind and his ilk have such high regard for rabbinic tradition. Heh heh.
Apikorus is offline  
Old 10-22-2001, 08:15 AM   #20
jre
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 166
Post

Semi-on topic: Comparisions between different versions on Ezekiel 23:20.

NIV
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

NRSV
She lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions.

KJV
She dotes upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

Good News Bible
She was filled with lust for oversexed men who had all the lustfulness of donkeys or stallions.

For some reason or another the local diocese recommended the Good News Bible over all other versions for grade schools.

edit - damn tyops.
edit #2 - I mean "typos"

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: jre ]

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: jre ]
jre is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.