Sona

how else would you know what todo with your first born son?

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/...e=Exodus+22:29

the_cave

Interesting...but I'd say it's probably because they're relying on the tradition established by the KJV, which does translate it "again".

The New American Bible, for example, the current English bible for American Catholics, does indeed translate it "above":

Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."

And it looks like there are others...so there's a healthy mix out there.

the_cave

But as for this, maybe you need to talk to different Christians! This answer is not the only response to inconsistencies, in my experience.

Of course, most ministers and priests can read Biblical Greek, so that could be another answer to your particular question...

Doctor X

Thank you Cave, I did not know that. I will have to add that to my evidence.

I must confess I enjoy the irony of a "born again" Christian suffering under a mistranslation.

--J.D.

the_cave

I'm not sure what your "evidence" refers to, but no problem. I should point out that the current translation is a revision, c. 1985--the first edition (c. 1970) could have been different, I suppose.

The NAB is made from a "modern" greek text--I think...this is a change from previous Catholic translations, which were made from the Vulgate.

Mathetes

As I said, Bibles in other languages also contain the error (also Catholic ones), so I was speculating that the tradition should be older that the King James.

CJD

Doc X, I mostly agree with you (re: the theology of the passage). My only point is let's not be so quick to strip the complexity of a double meaning from John, who, as we already know, uses this device often.

Regards,

CJD

the_cave

Oh, I see...well, didn't the KJV use some older translations, I believe they were called the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible or something? Although the KJV used I think a text similar to what the Byzantines used, presumably the older English translations would have used the Vulgate, so yes, probably you're right!

Dean Anderson

Thank you! I'm a rank amateur when it comes to this sort of stuff and I was very nervous about going into such detail in the BC&H forum where the more heavy-duty scholars (who's boots I am not fit to lick) can tell me to shut up because I'm talking tripe...