Vorkosigan

The issue isn't whether the sentence has been mistranslated against some standard of Greek, the issue is whether the differences are genuine disagreements among translators, or whether they stem from the theology of the translator. As the JW translation shows, theology has a huge influence on translation.

I thought the JW page was interesting because it was a very clear illustration of how theological the biases in the translations can get, but Mckinsey compiled a list in five parts in Biblical Errancy that lays out some of the differences between translations...

Here's the <a href="http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart35.html#ref357" target="_blank">first:</a> (I don't see a copyright notice, so I put in most of the section)

"[The initials that will be used for translations are: KJ = King James Version, RS = Revised Standard Version, ML = Modern Language, AS = American Standard Version, NEB = New English Bible, NAB = New American Bible, NI = New International Version, NAS = New American Standard, TEV = Today's English Version, BBE = Bible in Basic English, NWT = New World Translation, JB = Jerusalem Bible, LV = Lamsa's Version, MT = Masoretic Text, LB = Living Bible]. Disputed translations within the first subdivision of category CT are such verses as: EX. 20:3 ("You shall not have no other gods before me"--KJ, RS, ML, AS, NAS, MT, NI) versus ("You shall have no other gods except or besides me"--JB, NAB, TEV, BBE, LV). A clash over the first commandment arises from the fact that the former group merely says you must put the god of the Bible at the top of the list. Worship of other gods is not prohibited. 1 SAM. 6:19 ("But God smote of the men of Beth-shemesh...50,070...."--KJ, AS, NWT, NAS, MT) versus ("...he slew 70 men of them"--RS, LB, JB, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NI) versus ("the Lord smote 5,070 men of the people"--LV). Whether God killed 70 people or over 50,000 for a relatively innocuous act bears directly on the biblical teaching in Deut. 32:4, Psalm 9:8, etc. that God is just and righteous. Apparently this troubles scholars and accounts for the dramatic reduction in numbers in many recent translations. JOB 19:26 ("...yet in my flesh shall I see God"--KJ, LB, NI, TEV, NWT) versus ("then from or without my flesh I shall see God"--RS, ML, JB, AS, BBE, NAB, MT, NAS). The latter denies the physical resurrection of mankind which the former affirms. PROV. 14:33 ("...but it &lt;wisdom--Ed.&gt; is not known in the heart of the fools"--RS, NAB, JB, BBE, TEV, LV) versus ("But in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known"). Biblical teaching is contradictory as to whether wisdom lies within fools, although one might argue the inward part does not mean the heart. PROV. 28:3 ("A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain...."--NI, BBE, NAB, TEV) versus "A poor man that oppresseth the poor"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, AS, NAS, MT, LV). It's hard to visualize how a poor man could oppress the poor which is probably why the NI, NAB and TEV translators reversed the script. The biblical view of an important social issue is quite muddled. ISA. 7:14 ("Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son...."--KJ, ML, LB, NI, AS, NAB, NAS, LV) versus ("Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son...."--RS, BBE, NEB, TEV, MT) or (a young maiden--JB, NWT). This clash has been debated for centuries and goes to the heart of a critical biblical teaching because it's the only OT prophecy referring to the Messiah's virgin birth. DAN. 9:24 ("...and to anoint the most holy"--KJ, AS, NI) versus ("...and to anoint a most holy place"--RS, LB, BBE, NEB, TEV, NAS, MT). The 9th chapter of Daniel has one of the most important of all OT prophecies and it's rather difficult to see how it could be referring to Jesus, i.e. be messianic, when conflict exists as to whether the most holy is a man or a place. MICAH 5:2 ("...whose goings forth have been from old from everlasting"--KJ, ML, LB, AS, BBE, NWT, NAS, LV) versus ("...whose origin is from old from ancient days"--RS, JB, NI, NEB, TEV, MT, NAB). Micah 5:2 is supposedly one of the most precise OT prophecies because it supposedly predicts the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But how could it be referring to Jesus if his goings were "from ancient days" which, unlike "everlasting" denotes a beginning at some time in the distant past? Whether or not the Messiah had an origin is crucial. MATT. 12:40 ("For as Jonas was 3 days and 3 nights in the whale's belly"--KJ, RS, AS, NAB, LV) versus ("For as Jonas was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the sea-monster"--ML, JB, NEB, NAB) versus ("For as Jonas was in the great fish 3 days and 3 nights"--NI, NWT, TEV, LB, BBE). This conflict bears directly on the accuracy of comments by Jesus since whales are not fish and vice versa. MARK 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ"--NI, LB, JB, TEV, NWT) versus ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"--KJ, RS, ML, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS, LV). The former does not say Jesus wrote the Book of Mark while the latter all but says he did. MARK 15:39 ("...Truly this man was the son of God"--KJ, RS, NI, AS, NAB, TEV, NAS, LV) versus ("...In truth this man was a son of God"--JB, BBE, NEB). "A" son clearly means there could be other sons of God while "the" son does not. LUKE 1:27 ("To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph...."--KJ, ML, LB, RS, JB, NI, AS, BBE, NAB, NWT, NAS, LV) versus ("...with a message for a girl betrothed to a man named Joseph...."--NEB, TEV). The latter translation does not support the idea of a virgin birth. LUKE 2:33 ("Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken"--KJ, LB, LV) versus ("his father and his mother marveled at what was said...."--RS, ML, JB, NI, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS). Except for the Living Bible and the LV no modern version in our list supports the KJ. They all imply there was no virgin birth because Joseph is equated with his mother by being called his father. The second group clearly implies that Joseph was as much his father as Mary was his mother. LUKE 2:43 ("...and Joseph and his mother knew not of it"--KJ, LV) versus ("His parents did not know of it"--RS, LB, ML, JB, NI, AS, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS). Again every one of our versions says Joseph was the father of Jesus except the KJ and LV. Only the latter imply Joseph was not his father and there was a virgin birth. LUKE 17:21 ("...the Kingdom of God is within you"--KJ, LB, AS, TEV, NWT, NI, LV) versus ("...the Kingdom of God is among you"--RS, ML, JB, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS). Whether or not the Kingdom of God is within you or outside is of theological importance. JOHN 1:26, 31, 33 ("...I baptize with water"--KJ, ML, RS, LB, JB, BBE, NAB, TEV, NI, LV) versus ("...I baptize in water...."--AS, NEB, NWT, NAS). No wonder some support baptism by sprinkling ("with water") while others believe in baptism by immersion ("in water"). JOHN 10:29 ("My Father who has given them to me &lt;Jesus--Ed.&gt; is greater than all...."--KJ, ML, LB, RS, JB, AS, NEB, NAB, NAS, NI, LV) versus ("What my Father has given me is greater than anything...."--BBE, TEV, NWT). Which is greater than all? God or what God has given to Jesus? JOHN 10:33 ("...You a mere man claim to be a God"--NWT, NEB) versus ("...you a mere man claim to be God"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, AS, BBE, NI, NAB, TEV, NAS, LV). "A" god leaves open the possibility of many gods. Claiming to be God differs dramatically from claiming to be "a" god. ACTS 20:28 ("...of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood"--KJ, NWT, NAS, NI, TEV, LB, LV) versus ("...of God, which he obtained with the blood of his own Son"--RS, ML, JB, AS, BBE, NAB, NEB). Whether God's blood or that of his son was spilled is quite important, especially for those who don't believe the two are identical. ROM. 9:5 ("...as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever"--KJ, ML, JB, AS, BBE, NAS, LV) versus ("...according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever"--RS, LB, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT). The latter version clearly does not make Jesus God while the former does. 1 COR. 7:21 ("...Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery"--NAB, LV) versus ("If you can gain your freedom, do so"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, BBE, NI, NWT, NEB, NAS, TEV). By advising people to make the most of their slavery, the NAB and LV clearly conflict with other versions on a major point. 1 COR. 7:36 ("But if a man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter...and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry"--AS) versus the BBE, NAB, KJ, NI, NEB, NWT AND ML which omit the word "daughter." The latter don't agree with the ASV's teaching that fathers should marry their daughters rather than behave "unseemly" toward them. GAL. 3:24 ("Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring &lt;or lead&gt; us to Christ"--KJ, AS, BBE, NWT, NAS, NI, LV) versus ("...the law served as our custodian until Christ came"--ML, LB, RS, JB, NEB, NAB, TEV). If the law served as our custodian until christ came as the latter asserts, then it no longer held that role after he arrived which the former projects. The first version does not rule out its guidance after his arrival. Moreover, serving as our custodian does not necessarily mean it's bringing us to Christ. 1 TIM. 3:2, 12 & Titus 1:6 ("A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...."--KJ, ML, RS, LB, AS, BBE, NI, NWT, NEB, NAS, TEV, LV) versus ("A bishop must be irreproachable, married only once"--JB, NAB). The JB and NAB clearly limit a bishop to only one wife whereas the former do not keep him from having many wives as long as he has no more than one at a time. 1 TIM. 3:16 ("...great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh...."--KJ) versus ("Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh...."--RS, ML, JB, NI, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS). With differences of this magnitude is it any wonder that the King James only supporters are up-in-arms. In this instance, the KJ is the only version clearly saying God was manifest in the flesh. If "he" is referring to Jesus Christ, then it is only stating the obvious. If Jesus came, he came in the flesh or as a man. But it doesn't say he was God or God came in the flesh. 1 TIM. 4:4 ("For every creature of God is good...."--KJ, AS) versus ("For everything created by God is good...."--RS, ML, LB, JB, NI, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, LV). If everything created by God is good, that would include far more than just the "creatures" mentioned in the KJ and ASV. 1 TIM. 6:10 ("For the love of money is the root of all evil"--KJ, RS, ML, JB, NEB, NAS, LV) versus ("For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil"--NI, AS, TEV, NAS) versus ("For the love of money is a root of all evil"--BBE) versus ("For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things"--NWT). Is the love of money "a" root or "the" root? If it's "a" root then there could be many others. Is it the root of "all evil" or "all kinds of evil"? "All kinds" does not mean "all evil." Some could be excluded. 2 TIM. 3:16 ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NI, BBE, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS) versus ("Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching...."--AS, NEB, LV). A cardinal belief of all fundamentalists is that all scripture is inspired, but that is clearly not the import of the AS, NEB and LV. They leave open the possibility that some of Scripture is not inspired. TITUS 2:13 ("...and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"--KJ, AS, NAB, NWT, LV) versus ("...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"--RS, ML, LB, JB, BBE, NEB, TEV, NAS, NI). According to Granville Sharp's Rule of grammatical interpretation which fundamentalists propound, the first version is referring to two separate beings because the word "our" appears before the word Saviour. According to that same rule "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" in the second version is referring only to one being and calling Jesus God. This same rule, which supports BE's position, applies to "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" versus "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" in 2 Peter 1:1. HEB. 9:11 ("But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come...."--KJ, JB, AS, BBE, NI, NAS) versus ("But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come"--RS, ML, LB, NAB, NWT, NEB, TEV, LV). Versions differ on whether Christ was high priest of good things to come or of good things that already have come. 2 PETER 2:9 ("...and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished"--KJ, JB, NWT, LV), versus ("...and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment"--RS, ML, LB, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NAS, NI). Versions can't agree on whether punishment exists until the day of judgment or begins on the Day of Judgment. 1 JOHN 3:4 ("...for sin is transgression of the law"--KJ, JB, BBE, TEV) versus ("...sin is lawbreaking or lawlessness"--RS, ML, AS, NI, NAB, NWT, NEB, NAS). The "law" refers to OT maxims whereas "lawbreaking" could refer to any laws, OT or otherwise. Apparently some biblicists don't want to be obligated to follow all the Old Law. REV. 13:8 ("...whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"--KJ, ML, NWT, NI) versus ("...everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain"--NAS, LB, JB, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV). Conflict exists over what occurred at the foundation of the world. Was the lamb slain or were names written in the book of life?"

Four more pages on that site.

Michael

PS The JW site did have one worthwhile bit, entirely off-discussion, which I know you'll get kick out of:

• The letters in "INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY"
  rearrange as "A ROUGH WHIMPER OF INSANITY"

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: The issue isn't whether the sentence has been mistranslated against some standard of Greek, the issue is whether the differences are genuine disagreements among translators, or whether they stem from the theology of the translator. As the JW translation shows, theology has a huge influence on translation. I thought the JW page was interesting because it was a very clear illustration of how theological the biases in the translations can get, but Mckinsey compiled a list in five parts in Biblical Errancy that lays out some of the differences between translations...

Are we going to have a discussion or are you just going to keep throwing links at me? Pick a biblical passage from a respected translation that you’re willing to defend as being inaccurate due to the theological bias of the translators. I’m not going to go through list after list of allegations, so just pick one or two that most strongly support your claim.

You have accused some translations of reflecting a “trinitarian-bias” and faulted another for not using the correct name for “Yahweh” in the Old Testament. You haven’t provided evidence for either. I don’t have it in front of me right now, but I’m almost certain that the preface of the NIV contains an explanation of the “YHWH” issue and why they translated it the way they did.

You claimed theology has a “huge influence on translation”, and you cite the JW translation (New World) as evidence. In this instance you are correct, but they are an exception that proves the rule. They start out with their theology and then force their translation to fit the theology. The well-respected translations (RSV, NIV, NAS, etc.) are not guilty of this error. Unless you can provide some evidence to indicate otherwise, your assertion that theology corrupts good translation is simply unsupported.

I’m also waiting for Akido and Albright to provide any sort of evidence to support their claims.

CX

In general the NWT with it's obvious anti-trinitarian bias is pretty weak. Not that there isn't bias in orthodox translations, but not nearly as bad. Plus the NWT goes for a word for word literal translation which more obscures the meaning of the text than illuminates it. Lets take a look at the first "trinitarian bias" listed on the page referenced by Turtonm.

GJn 1:1

NIV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NWT In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

Let's look at a couple greek versions:

W-H EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS

Byz/Maj EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS

T-R EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS

What do we notice here? All 3 of these Greek editions are verbatim the same, so the MSS must agree on this passage. Now what does the passage actually say? It's is pretty straight forward

EN ARCH (in the beginning) HN (was) hO LOGOS (the word) KAI (and) hO LOGOS (the word) PROS (was near/with/by) TON QEON ([this] God) KAI (and) QEOS (God) HN (was) hO LOGOS (the word).

Now perhaps the NWT is making something of the word inversion in the formula at the end, but this is a tremendous stretch and without any bias trinitarian or anti-trinitarian (which I certainly don't have since I'm an atheist) the most reasonable translation is that I have just outlined which far closer to the traditional translation than the NWT version.

NOGO

The JW I believe claim that since there is no article in front of the word God it should be translated "a God". I realize this is nonsense since I know that at other places the definitive article is not there but we can see from the context that it is reffering to YHWH.

Actually I would like to see some of these in Greek if you can point me to a link on the web.

One last thing...
This is strange idea of mine of which I make no particular claim.
"In the begining is the word" This makes me think of magic in the sense of "abracadabra". In Genesis God creates by using spells "Let there be light" etc.
The word was with God. The word was Godlike.
The word incarnated (ie became flesh)
This could mean that the power of God's word became incarnated into a human called Jesus.
So Jesus spoke with God's power.

In Luke's geneology Jesus is the son of Joseph, son of ... son of David, ... son of Adam, son of God. If we are to believe this then everybody is a son of God.

When Jesus cured a blind man (?) the man called him the anointed one of God. Obviously the miracle itself did not convince him that Jesus was God.

I am just wondering how far this can be taken but I must admit that I am not hanging my hat on it.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:


You have accused some translations of reflecting a “trinitarian-bias” and faulted another for not using the correct name for “Yahweh” in the Old Testament. You haven’t provided evidence for either.

No, I paraphrased what the site said by way of introduction. The only opinion I inserted was that the JW site was interesting.

In any case, just click on the different bibles at Biblegateway.com and compare their translations and notes for 1 John 5:7. The NIV omits the later interpolation without any note. Some versions put it in, without any note that it is a well-known later interpolation. Are you going to contend that this was done for non-doctrinal reasons? It's been known since the 19th century that 1 John 5:7 is a later interpolation.

***
From
<a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/biblever.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/biblever.htm</a>
"For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.

The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God 'will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).' To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."
****

In another thread I noted that the NIV gets rid of the "Were Cephas and Peter the same?" problem in Gal 2:6-9 by simply translating "Cephas" as "Peter" in that controversial passage. The RSV and KJV stick to the actual text of the letter.

The NIV translators were all committed to the doctrine of inerrancy:

• In working towards this goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's word in written form.

and so felt free to fiddle with the text to get rid of contradictions. One commonly-identified text is 1 John 3:9, which the NIV translates differently from all other versions, to avoid a clear contradiction with 1 John 1:8-10

1 John 1:8-10 (NIV)
8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
10
If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

I John 3:9 (NIV)
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

1 John 3:9 (RSV)
No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

With the inserted words continue and go on it becomes possible to finesse the contradiction in with 1 John 1 above. Christians sin, but they don't "go on sinning." Other translations look like the RSV, with the bald statement that sin is impossible after becoming Christian.

From
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/versions.html#remove" target="_blank">Rejection of Pascal's Wager</a> ****
II Kings 24:8 (NRSV)
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King; he reigned three months in Jerusalem

II Chronicles 36:9 (NRSV)
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.


The NRSV did not even have a footnote at II Chronicles 36:9, implying that the main textual traditions supported this reading, although it is in contradiction to the passage in II Kings. Let us see how the NIV presented these passages:

II Kings 24:8 (NIV)
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months.

II Chronicles 36:9 (NIV)
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months and ten days.


See how the contradiction has disappeared! Have there been new discoveries in archaeology or textual criticism since the publication of the NRSV that the NIV took advantage of? No. The NIV I have is a 1989 edition and is also based mainly on the Biblia Hebraica, like the NRSV. The truth is found in a very small footnote at the bottom of the page in which this passages appears. This is what the footnote says:

One[talics mine] Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac, most Hebrew manuscripts eight. "
*****

As the author points out, the NIV admits in a footnote that the more accurate translation is "eight," but make the contradiction disappear. Not only did they lie, but they even told you they lied.

Another contradiction removed by the NIV is the one in genesis, where A&E are told that if they eat the apple, they'll die that day in all versions except NIV, which eliminates "that day." No "that day," no contradiction.

That site also points out that the NIV gets rid of reprehensible acts by mistranslation as well. For example, in the famous passage in which the children poke fun at Elisha and are eaten by bears, all other versions say "children." The NIV says "youths."

Of course, the NIV deliberately added words to change the meaning of the text. A notorious example is Jeremiah 7:22, where the NIV has the opposite meaning that the hebrew has:

Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV
For in the day that I brought your ancestors out to the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Jeremiah 7:22 NIV
For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Again, in Matthew:

Matthew 13:31-32 NRSV
He [Jesus] put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in the field; it is the smallest of all seeds...
Matthew 13:31-32 NIV
He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds...

Gross error eliminated, since the mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds.

I think this should be enough examples of deliberate mistranslations on the part of the NIV. I don't see why I have to demonstrate what is well known.

I don’t have it in front of me right now, but I’m almost certain that the preface of the NIV contains an explanation of the “YHWH” issue and why they translated it the way they did.


from
<a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/" target="_blank">International Bible Society Site</a>
"In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "Lord" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord," for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered "Sovereign Lord."

Michael

PS
I stumbled across the Cotton-Patch version (1960). It uses modern terms and ideas. Very amusing.

"Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that's been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage" (CPV).

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved" (NIV).

aikido7

Polycarp, part of Jesus' distinctiveness was his social promiscuity. He was "gender inclusive" in an era of systemic social and political patriarchy.
Any attempt to make the biblical texts "gender inclusive" today numbs our sensitivity to just how boundary-shattering Jesus' praxis was.

By changing the historical context around Jesus, liberals can have their own "politically correct" Jesus and conservatives can put the idea of inclusion or diversity ever higher and ever out of reach on their "Christ" pedestal.

Sorry--no proof texts at the moment, though.

CX

[quote]Originally posted by turtonm:
<strong>I think many of your points are well taken. There is no question that in any biblical translation there is doctrinal bias on the part of the translators. That is why it is so crucial to learn the rudiments of the Greek. The problem of translational bias is present in every English translation primarily because the only people really interested in a dispassionate critical text are NT scholars who already know the Greek and can go to the source texts. I once asked an NT Greek instructor of mine if there was a scholarly edition of an English translation. His reply was, "Why would there be? Who on earth would read it?" His point was, as he hammered home over and over again, that the rank and file believer doesn't care if he has the most accurate scholarly translation of the bible. He generally only cares that it aligns with his doctrinal beliefs. That is the reason for the absurd, but heated arguments about KJV versus modern translation etc. People see in the bible exactly what they want to see. This is no less true of atheists and other non-Xians. I admit to some of that myself. I try to subvert that by looking at the greek texts and really thinking about what the text says even if it's plain meaning has a result I'm not happy with.

As to your points regarding the NIV, yes it does "dynamically translate" some difficult passages out of the Greek texts, but it also leaves in quite a few difficult readings, like GMk 1:2. In general if you compare it to the Greek texts it is as accurate as any other, for the most part, and obviously superior to some.

Haran

Where's the "was"?

Why WH, Byz, and T-R (Textus Receptus?)? This seems like an odd selection of critical texts to me.

Perhaps this is just an oversight, but where's the "was" again? "PROS" does not translate as "was with", it only translates as "with". There should be an "HN" ("was") before "PROS"...

Haran

Vorkosigan

The NIV has good footnotes in some cases too. I don't think it is a total loss; I use it myself. But it is one thing to struggle with a difficult reading; quite another to deliberately mistranslate a passage to conform to doctrine.

Michael

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm: In any case, just click on the different bibles at Biblegateway.com and compare their translations and notes for 1 John 5:7. The NIV omits the later interpolation without any note. Some versions put it in, without any note that it is a well-known later interpolation. Are you going to contend that this was done for non-doctrinal reasons? It's been known since the 19th century that 1 John 5:7 is a later interpolation.

I don’t think you read the NIV very carefully. There is a note at 1 John 5:7-8 that says this:

“[7,8] Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. [8] And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)”

The NIV isn’t a book on textual criticism, but it clearly indicates there is an interpolation in this passage. How much clearer could they have been than to say v. 8 is “not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century”? I think you missed the mark on this one.

Quote:

"For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine. The NIV renders Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about not before God." This passage is used to support the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But the NIV translates the erg- derivatives in Romans 2:6-7 differently: "God 'will give to each person according to what he has done (erga).' To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

This is simply grasping at straws without looking at all of the evidence. Forms of the word “ergon” occur 169 times in the New Testament. The NIV translates it as “work” or “works” 44 times, and as “deed” or “deeds” 32 times. Look at a verse like 2 Cor 9:8 that says, “you will abound in every good work” or Col 1:10, which says, “bearing fruit in every good work”. We could claim these verses enhance Catholic doctrine, so does this mean the NIV translators are closet Catholics? I’m sorry, but this argument is terrible. James Akin (author of the article you referenced) is an apologist for Catholicism. This doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this issue, but the reader should know this going in to the discussion. There just isn’t an anti-Catholic slant to the NIV, or if there is I’m going to need a little more evidence than this to be convinced.

Quote:

In another thread I noted that the NIV gets rid of the "Were Cephas and Peter the same?" problem in Gal 2:6-9 by simply translating "Cephas" as "Peter" in that controversial passage. The RSV and KJV stick to the actual text of the letter. The NIV translators were all committed to the doctrine of inerrancy: In working towards this goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's word in written form. and so felt free to fiddle with the text to get rid of contradictions

Your argument seems to be that because the NIV translators were committed to inerrancy they covered up an error by translating “Cephas/Petros” into the same word (Peter). If this were actually the case, then why did they use “Cephas” in three other verses: 1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, and 9:5? I’ll agree that it is a very loose translation, but to attribute it to the translators views on inerrancy doesn’t fit the evidence. They “fiddled” with the text, but it certainly wasn’t because of their views on inerrancy, it was simply to make for a smoother read. In addition, they do have notes in the NIV that specifically say “Cephas” was the word used in verses 9, 11, and 14. Why do this if they’re hell-bent on proving inerrancy?

Here’s what Paul says about “Cephas”:
1. He was a leader in the early church. (1 Cor 1:12, etc.)
2. He was a missionary who traveled (1 Cor 9:5).
3. He was married (1 Cor 9:5).
4. He was a missionary to the Jews, along with James and John (Gal 2:9).
5. He was in Jerusalem about five years after the death of Jesus, and met with Paul at this time (Gal 1:18).
6. He was apparently the first to see the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5).
7. Paul met with him in Jerusalem a second time about 14 years after their first visit and Paul had his gospel message approved by him (Gal 2:9)
8. Paul had a conflict with him in Antioch over the role of Gentiles in relationship to the gospel (Gal 2:11-21)

Now here’s what Paul says about “Petros”:

1. He is an apostle (Gal 2:8).
2. He is a missionary to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8)
3. He seems to be the primary and leading missionary to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8)

Let’s add to this the story in John 1:40-42 where “Cephas” and “Petros” are equated, and I think a reasonable inference can be made that Paul is speaking of the same person when he refers to “Cephas/Petros”.

Quote:

One commonly-identified text is 1 John 3:9, which the NIV translates differently from all other versions, to avoid a clear contradiction with 1 John 1:8-10 With the inserted words continue and go on it becomes possible to finesse the contradiction in with 1 John 1 above. Christians sin, but they don't "go on sinning." Other translations look like the RSV, with the bald statement that sin is impossible after becoming Christian.

I agree that the NIV translates 1 Jn 3:9 poorly, but I don’t see how this fits your “inerrancy” hypothesis. None of the NIV translators would say that Christians do not “continue to sin” or “go on sinning” after their point of conversion. I think this is a case of inserting some additional words to make it more applicable to believers. However, I think the translators were a little too “dynamic” in their translation of this verse.

I’m running short on time to comment on your remaining NIV verses, but I would agree with you on Matt 13:31-32. That’s going way too far. Jer 7:22 is a bad translation, but I don’t think it gives the “opposite meaning” of the Hebrew. I’m confused about the Adam/Eve reference. I assume you’re referring to Gen 3:3, but none of the versions I checked add a “that day”. Complaining about “youths” vs. “children” seems insignificant.

I’ve never been a huge NIV fan. I had a Greek professor who always referred to it as the “New Inaccurate Version”, and I would agree with him.