Dean Anderson

While posting on this thread about the differences in translation of Isiah 34:13, I started wondering...

Presumably, these sorts of differences would come in a number of forms:

1) A different wording is used but this does not change the meaning of the text.

Example:
The difference between 'eternal life' and 'everlasting life' does not alter the context of the verse.

2) A different wording is used, and this significantly alters the meaning of the text - as in the Isiah 34:13 example in the other thread, where the verse is either talking about mundane animals or supernatural creatures

Example
In the first instance, the King of Babylon is compared to the character 'Lucifer' - which is introduced in this verse and interpreted as being the name of a 'fallen angel' which is equated with the character 'Satan' and made into a conglomerate 'Lord Of Evil' by most Christians.

In the second instance, however, the King of Babylon is merely being given (somewhat sarcastic) honorifics - and no character of Lucifer appears.

3) A different wording is used and the meaning of a verse is completely reversed (for example, by the inclusion or a removal of a 'not'). I don't know any examples of this happening - but there may be some.

4) One translation contains a verse or partial verse, but other translations omit it completely. Again, I don't know any examples of this happening (off the top of my head).

So - can you guys provide examples (if they exist) of the types of differences that I didn't have examples for?

Are there other types of translational difference that I have missed?

How do inerrantists deal with these differences? I often hear people quoting conflicts and discrepancies between verses in a single translation for inerrantists to deal with - but I never hear inerrantists being given multiple contradictory translations and being asked which of them is the inerrant one and why.

GakuseiDon

Most inerrantists believe only that the original autographs are inerrant. Of course, they then only need to say that the translation that most suits them was the version meant in the original...

DrJim

There are some other discrepancies sort of inbetween being irrelevant and changing things dramatically. Often this comes from an obscurity in the Hebrew and translations can generally get the gist of the line, but can't agree on the exact nuance.

In Amos 1-2, for instance, there is a series of formulaic oracles. Each one begins, "for the three rebellions of (place name) and for for lo eshivenu. This expression is the negative, "lo" plus a "hiphil" (causitive) form of the verb "return" and a suffix pronoun meaning "it" or "him", so literally it read, " I will not bring it/him back' or "I will not withdraw it" or something like that. There is no clear antecedent for the pronoun, so what "it" might be is a bit of a mystery. In any case, the line seems to imply something negative, God's patience is wearing out and something bad is going to happen. The "it" is often understood as the following oracles of doom, the earthquake mentioned in 1:2, the fire mentioned later and so forth. Alternatively, the line can read "I will not allow him to repent", since the "him" can be collective and "return" is sometimes used for return. All sorts of nuances of meaning. A number of commentators think there is a deliberate word play here. Of course, rendering word-plays and deliberate ambiguity in English makes a text a rather ugly read, especially in devotional and churchy contexts.

Anyway, there are lots of other reasons why translations differ: some want a relatively literal rendering even if it mean lack of clarity in English, others want modern idiomatic English so Hebrew expressions are not tranlated literally.

As far as translations missing verses etc, check the ending of 1 Samuel 10 in the New Revised Standard Version and other translations: the NRSV includes a few lines from a Qumran Scroll which are not found in the manuscripts earlier translations were made from.

Diofferences between the Septuagint and MT can lead to a number of translational differences depending on which text the tranlators decided to work from in any given passage.

Im not sure if standard English translations would differ too much in terms of missing passages etc. although academic translations are often full of emendations, omissions etc because the MT, LXX or other ancient version has something extra or lacks something that the academic things should or shoud not be in the "original".

JRL