OneInFundieville

I was looking at the site for the Today's NIV translation.

On their site, the International Bible Society says...

"Textual revisions result when a better understanding of ancient languages and cultures, new archeological findings and developments in biblical scholarship create the need for translation changes."

Made me wonder, specifically which passages and specifically which archeological findings.

Anybody have any idea on exactly what they are talking about?

Also, anything similar, that you know of on the use of archeological evidence being considered, somehow, in other translations?

(I think this is the right forum but not sure.)

rob117

The Ugaritic texts helped clarify the meaning of some words that appear only rarely in the Bible.

OneInFundieville

Do you know any specific verses or words in any specific translations?

HeretiKc

Don't know, but, based on the Ugaritic texts, we know that both Baal and YHWH really liked to ride the clouds.

If anything, the NIV is going to choose to ignore any extra-biblical content that may challenge the uniqueness of the Hebrew Bible; further, it is going to see everything is the Hebrew Bible through the lens of Christianity, as well.

____

Actually back more on topic, check out the problem of Psalm 22:16--it's been discussed to death here. NIV (among others) translate it as something like "pierced my hands and feet", while early mss. suggest that a more accurate translation is "like a lion at my hands and feet".

^ But this is another example of a translation NIV would ignore.

rob117

For example, in Judges 5:17, contains a line that is translated "Why did Dan remain in ships?" This doesn't make sense since Dan did not live on the coast. Ugarit and the Old Testament points out that in Ugaritic a word with the same consonants means "at ease", which makes more sense, and that the masoretic scribes, not knowing this archaic word, incorrectly supplied the vowels that give it the meaning "in ships."

The JPS Tanakh has at least several dozen instances where it justifies its translation of a particular word or phrase by a corresponding word in Ugaritic, Akkadian, or Punic, (or Aramaic or Arabic, but these were known before archaeology).

Dever (2001) also points out that before archaeology we did not know what an asherah was (KJV translates the term as "sacred grove"; in reality it was cultic pole used to represent a female deity); or that a cherub was usually a winged sphynx or some other winged animal-human hybrid (not a winged infant!).

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

We had a thread recently

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=198298
John 5:1-7

which included information about how archaeology confirmed the Bible
historicity and the name of the pool in John 5 as Bethesda. This is
given in the King James Bible from the Received Text indicating that
these texts had an understanding and knowledge of the 1st-century
names. (The pool was destroyed in 70 AD and the name was
later corrupted.) Earlier this reading had been rejected by the scholars.

Westcott-Hort had two readings, one in the margin, both wrong, and
this was followed in the RSV and NRSV - Beth-za'tha. Also wrong
were the NWT, NCV, BBE, TEV, Rotherdam and the Rheims NT.

In fact this was apparently the reading of early editions of the NIV.

http://www.pathlights.com/onlinebook...t-frequant.htm
The King James Bible and the Modern Versions
In John 5:2, NIV has selected "Bethzatha" instead of "Bethesda"
- Vance Ferrell

The NIV and other modern versions like the NAS are infamous for
undocumented changes with copyright apparently being a motive.
Although this change would have been substantive, to correct
the earlier Westcott-Hort error.

It seems the NIV caught up and made the change later, vigilantly
catching up to the truth of the historic Bible on Bethesda. The
current NIV edition on crosswalk.com has Bethesda. So this could
be an example of a belated recognition by the NIV of archaeology,
although they could have accomplished the same end just by using
the pure Greek text rather than the W-H corruption.

Note that the NIV retained the error of calling the word Aramaic
by mistranslating Hebraisti.

Please note that archaeologically Bethesda is doubly confirmed
(the Copper Scroll and the actual digging of the pool).

John 5:2 (KJB)
Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda,
having five porches.

Now the earlier Westcott-Hort error is generally rejected and the
more recent modern versions like the HCSB and the ESV have the
historic TR-KJB 'Bethesda' rather than the reading from the supposed
"early and most reliable manuscripts".

Here is an excellent related note.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ibleorigin.php
History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us By Wesley Ringer

The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.

And this fits perfectly with the present tense usage by John,
with his writing before 70 AD.

"Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool"

And Dean John Burgon pointed out this Westcott-Hort blunder in
rejecting the historic reading of Bethesda, even before the
archaeological discoveries, in the Revision Revised.

Very fine.

Shalom,
Steven Avery