Jump to content


* - - - - 1 votes

Bible translations


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Chad Duskin

Guest_Chad Duskin
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2002 - 06:48 PM

I am interested in finding out what translation(s) of the Bible best reflects the beliefs and traditions of the Orthodox church. Though my primary inquiry is for English translations I am also interested in what is happening in other countries.


#2 Guest_Razhden Guriadze

Guest_Razhden Guriadze
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2002 - 05:18 AM

Greetings in Christ,

I suggest for a single volume Bible the "Oxford Annotated with Apocrypha".

For Bible students I recommend The "Hebrew-Chaldee Inter-linear",Coupled with the "Greek-English Interlinear" and "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance"( I think I got that right.)

Forgive me UK, But I think the "King James" to be one of the worst.

If you compare it to the original Greek text(New Testament only.) You will find that the translators didn't like some of what was said so they rewrote it to suit themselves.

I.E. the angelic salutation to the shepherds. The original goes some thing like this "Peace on Earth. Good will towards men with whom God is well pleased." This implies to those with whom God is not well pleased something else.

The translators didn't like this thought so they wrote,"Peace on Earth. good will toward ALL men".

Don't take my word for it check it out for yourselves.

God bless and guide us all into His light,
ICXC
Razhden

#3 Guest_Razhden Guriadze

Guest_Razhden Guriadze
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2002 - 05:21 AM

OOPS! I forgot that the "Hebrew/Chaldee-English inter-linear" is what I meant.

Mea culpa.
Razhden

#4 Guest_Chad Duskin

Guest_Chad Duskin
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2002 - 08:03 AM

Razhden:

What English version is the Oxford Annotated? English Standard Version or Revised Standard Version? And what English version is in the Interlinear?

Chad


#5 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 10 April 2002 - 09:13 AM

The Oxford Annotated Bible is NRSV, and also includes the so-called 'Apocrypha' (properly part of the Orthodox canon) in the NRSV edition. It is an excellent volume for academic study: the notes are primarily heavy cross-references and explicative comments that presume a relatively detailed knowledge of biblical history and classical thought, and the immediate accessibility of additional resources.

Another good volume is the Harper-Collins Study Bible (also NRSV), which includes notes that are somewhat more expansive and accessible. I generally recommend the Oxford volume to students taking a degree in theology and thus study the historical side in other forums, and the Harper-Collins volume to those who aren't, and thus will appreciate the broader range of notes.

Notes on the New Testament from Orthodox perspectives are found in the Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms. This volume uses the NKJV edition of the NT and Psalms texts, and the notes are aimed at a general (i.e. non-academic) readership.

As to particular translations: overall, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is the best text for Scripture study, as it is a relatively successful attempt at literal-when-possible translation. Its main 'alterations' are in personal pronouns and gender-specific Greek/Hebrew vocabulary: references to collective groups of people as 'men' in the Hebrew or Greek, when such references obviously refer to both men and women, are generally translated as 'people' -- and the NRSV translators have been quite good at noting every single instance where they made such a change, and providing the original in the marginal notes. To quell any fears: this kind of gendered-vocabulary alteration is not employed for changes in reference to God, only to collections of people. God is properly He wherever the original languages used such a term.

For those who are extensively interested in Old Testament study, the best translation of the Hebrew version still remains the NASB (New American Standard Bible), which seems to have employed better Hebrew scholars than did the NRSV: its capture and presentation of Hebrew idiom is very apt, and the text is quite vivid. The NASB New Testament, however, leaves something to be desired.

The Old Testament in the Greek (Septuagint/LXX) version suffers from lack of any good English translation at present -- the motivation for the current Orthodox Study Bible: Old Testament translation project, which should yield an Orthodox translation of the LXX sometime in 2004. A very, very inadequate English translation of the LXX without (!) the 'Apocryphal' books is that of Brenton, but this is really not a reliable volume for a whole host of reasons.

A new translation of the so-called 'Apocrypha' comes as part of the NAB (New American Bible) published by the Roman Catholic Church. Without regard to the commentary notes (which I have not read), the text of the translation is one of the best I've seen of these books.

So, if you're really gung-ho on study of Scripture: NASB for the Hebrew OT; Brenton for passable LXX OT; NAB for the 'Apocryphal' books; NRSV for NT. Or you can simply use the NRSV for everything, which is more than adequate and costs less than the whole library. Posted Image

Translations which generally should not be used for Scriptural study include: the KJV (King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version) which, though beautiful, is based off of a bad manuscript tradition (i.e. the source Greek for the NT from which it is drawn, is not accurate), and the English it employs is antiquated to such a degree that certain phrases now have very different meanings than those that are meant in the text. The GNB (Good News Bible) should never be used for Scriptural study, as it is not a translation of the Bible, but a paraphrase or interpretation of it. It has its place if one wishes to read the editors' interpretation and re-presentation of scriptural passages, but for the actual study of Scriptural texts it is to be avoided.

Please note that I've described study volumes above, not those which are best suited for liturgical use, group reading, etc.

INXC, Matthew


#6 John Curtis Dunn

John Curtis Dunn

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 12 April 2002 - 09:30 PM

Razhden Guriadze Posted on Wednesday, April 10

If you compare it to the original Greek text(New Testament only.) You will find that the translators didn't like some of what was said so they rewrote it to suit themselves. I.E. the angelic salutation to the shepherds. The original goes some thing like this "Peace on Earth. Good will towards men with whom God is well pleased." This implies to those with whom God is not well pleased something else....The translators didn't like this thought so they wrote,"Peace on Earth. good will toward ALL men". Don't take my word for it check it out for yourselves


Thank you for your input Razhden, but please re-check your source for the KJV translation of Luke 2:14. It reads, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men." Perhaps many readers or even listeners insert the thought of 'all men' into the reading. It is true that these words follow the Angelic salutation to the Shepherds, but the words were not directed towards them. The preceeding verse reads "And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God, and saying,". Verse 14 was addressed towards God, not the shepherds, yet, the Shepherds were allowed to witness the worship of the heavenly hosts. The Shepherds bear witness to the joy of the Angels who are witnesses to the Divine mystery of the Incarnation by their worship and praise.

Sts. Bede, Kyril, Leo and Gregory the Great all concur that the Angels are exultant over the Incarnation because in Christ man was elevated into the heavenly Jerusalem. St. Gregory enlightens us with this thought, "Because, through sin, we had become strangers to God, the angels, as God's subjects, cut us off from their fellowship. But since we have acknowledged our King, the angels receive us as fellow citizens."

St. Kyril wrote: "But it pleased God the Father to form into one new whole all things in Christ, and to bind together things below and things above, and to make tose in heaven and those on earth into one flock. Chris, therefore, has been made for us poth peace and good will."

However, even it 'all' were inserted it need not be understood to mean 'every individual' but rather as the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans, "to the Jew first and then to the Gentile." Or even as the Apostle John wrote in Rev. 21:24 "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (note the present passive participle which would lit. reads, "the nations of those being saved,")

My point is simply that the KJV does not require a "universalist" reading. Personally I have found that the KJV offers a more accurate "English Theological language" than most of the other translations. I would contend that it has within it a more consistent (not perfect)"theological rule' of interpretation than most of the other translations recommended. I definetly do not recommend the widely marketed NIV or New International Version.

As to Matthews comments about the bad manuscript source for the KJV, which manuscript are you recommending?

Sincerely,

John Curtis

#7 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 13 April 2002 - 12:45 AM

As to Matthews comments about the bad manuscript source for the KJV, which manuscript are you recommending?


The KJV New Testament is based principally upon what is known as the 'Received Text', itself essentially a recension of the Greek text as collated together from a very small number of manuscripts by a medieval scholar named Eusebius. It became 'standard' inasmuch as his was the first printed edition of the Scriptures, became the most accessible and the most widely known -- all in very short order. But the received text is actually a remarkably un-critical manuscript, which actual critical manuscript work has shown to be largely deficient on a number of fronts.

In any case, the Received Text has never been one of established acceptance in the Orthodox Church (not least due to its incredibly late date!), and while some other churches may consider the Authorised Version to be 'the' version of the NT, this has never been the case with Orthodoxy.

In general, Orthodox translations have traditionally been based off of the most accurate manuscripts available at a given time, and thus in principle Orthodoxy is not at odds with the critical study of textual sources and further refinement of textual apparati, etc. However, the dominant rule in Orthodox textual acceptance is not scholarly, critical consensus, but rather the traditional witness of the Church; thus 'the texts the Fathers have used' has at least as much bearing on such questions as 'the text scholars have reconstructed'.

INXC, Matthew

#8 Guest_Razhden Guriadze

Guest_Razhden Guriadze
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2002 - 04:56 AM

John,your quote is correct in some versions on the King James, but, not so for all.

What I said was that the "Original Greek said,"Peace on earth good will to men with whom God is well pleased". Remember I said GREEK, Not KJV. The words "...with whom God is well pleased."

infer that "Peace on Earth" is not intended for those with whom God is not well pleased!!!!

The translators did not like this inference so they rewrote it!

This is only one of many rewritten passages in the KJV.

Go read the original Greek text and then read the KJV, you'll puke.

God guide us all,
ICXC,Razhden

#9 John Curtis Dunn

John Curtis Dunn

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 13 April 2002 - 12:45 PM

Thank-you Matthew.

First, I am not a Greek scholar of, or with, any degree. I am a "parts person" (perhaps you are familiar with this term), meaning I am dependant upon the "instruction manuels" produced by others. However, even a parts person may become familiar with 'parts' and associated problems which occur with parts.

It was not my intent to defend the 'Received Text'(often referred to by the Latin term textus receptus). I have been taught that this term has been mistakenly understood by many outside of Orthodoxy to mean that it was the "Received Greek Manuscript by the Church" which as Matthew has succintly pointed out was not he case within Orthodoxy. The term came to be associated with the Greek Manuscript due to a 'marketing blurb' found within the preface of the second edition (1633) published by the Elzevir brothers. The term does has some relative historical truth within it; in that it was indeed the 'received text used on the European continen (the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament.)

Matthew wrote: >>"But the received text is actually a remarkably un-critical manuscript"<<

I hope you are not meaning to suggest that the scholars who made use of it (Among them the quite renown Sir Lancelot Andrews) were un-critical? In the original 1611 KJV there are thirteen critical NT notes. Among them is Luke 17:36 of which the note reads, "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Furthermore the scholorly manner in which the translators made use of the Greek manuscripts is apparahent in the Nativity Sermons preached by Sir Lancelot Andrews before King James (a most interesting read IMO).

Furthermore in the original 1611 KJV there are eleven pages in the front called, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. On page 3 the following statement is found, ""The original there being from heaven, not from the earth, the author’s being God, not man, the editor, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles." In this quote the Translators are clearly making a reference to an "ORIGINAL TEXT." And by presenting the note from Luke 11:36 I have shown that the Translators did not conclude that their choice of an accepted manuscript was an absolute final word on the Greek. Also, neither did they give to their translation a "final word" stamp of approval. This latter KJV ONLY approach originates predominately from the US in the last century.

In my previous post in this tread I was not defending the Textus Receptus, rather I was defending the "English theological consistency" used within ith the KJV. Their is found within the use of English a consistency which creates a kind of 'orthodoxy of English theological expression.' Even so, I was not stating that this 'expression' was perfect for Orthodoxy, but then I have heard some argue English is devoid of all possibility to express Orthodoxy. But even if not perfect I have not read any English translation which IMO can capture the idiom of Orthodoxy as well as the KJV.

It will not suffice to point out particuliar examples where the KJV fails, for I have already stated it was less than perfect. In each offered modern translation arguments may be presented which show the peculiar failures of each. I have a few of my favorite texts which this is IMO blatantly apparent. (I could post a few if it is of any interest.)

I have attempted to distinguish between the Translation and the Text behind the Translation.
I hope I have been lucid in this attempt, if not, forgive me for prolonging this discussion. IMO that which Matthew described as 'beautiful' (the KJV English) is deeper than the synatical structure of 1611 English idioms. I am suggesting and contending that there is an "Theological English Tradition" which has value for communicating the Orthodox Faith found within the text of the KJV, not perfect, but superior to most if not 'all'.


Sincerely,
John Curtis


#10 John Curtis Dunn

John Curtis Dunn

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 13 April 2002 - 09:46 PM

Razhden posted Saturday, April 13

"John,your quote is correct in some versions on the King James, but, not so for all."

I have a copy of the 1611 and it reads as I previously posted. Both the New KJV and the Modern KJV read essentially the same. I am unfamiliar with any other KJV.

I do know that the Douay-Rheims reads, "and on earth peace to men of good will." While the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, " And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." In the Greek text I have it reads, doxa {GLORY} en {IN [THE]} hupsistos {HIGHEST} theos {TO GOD,} kai {AND} epi {ON} ge {EARTH} eirene {PEACE,} en {IN} anthropos <{MEN} eudokia {GOOD PLEASURE.}"

In Luke 12:32 the KJ translators translated eudokia as 'good pleasure'. In Rom. 15:26, 27 it was translated, 'it hath pleased them'; 1 Cor., 1:21; Gal. 1:15; Col. 1:19; 1 Thess. 2:8 as, 'it pleased'.

It is fair enought to question "WHY" 'good will towards men' was the preferred rendering? Even so, I do not see any suspicious motives in that rendering. Sir Lancelot Andrews (who was one of the translators of the KJV) preached the following words before King James on one December 25th.

"Eudoxia, or eudoxiaz, nominative or genitive, let it not trouble you. "To men a good-will;" or "to men of good-will"~~no greate matter wheter, so long as eudoxia refers to God and to His "good pleasure," not to men or any will of theirs. And that so it is t be referred, I will use no other witness but Cardinal Tolet himself; who in his readings at Rome, and in the Pope' own Chapel, and upon this very place confesseth as much, that so is the native signification of the word; and so and no otherwise to be taken here, but in that sense.
And in that sense being taken, it goes well. Glory from us to Him, peace from Him to us. From men on earth to God on high, glory; from God on high to men on earth, peace. Men I say, toward whom He is now appeased, and with whom now He is well-pleased; and both, for this Child's sake here in the cratch, in Whom He is so absolutely well-pleased, as of the fulness of His favour we all receive. God spake it once and twice. 1. Once at His Baptism (Mat iii. 17); 2. and again in the Holy Mount. (Matt. xvii. 5.)
And hoc erit signum, this may be a sure sign that He is well-pleased with our nature, that He hath in this Child taken it and united it to His own; which, if He had not been highly well-pleased, He would never have done. What greater good-will can there be than this? It passeth the greatest, even that of marriage~~union of nature, unity o' person.
Then riseth there another doubt, what verb to put to here. For never a verb there is at all. Whether some indicative,``glory is or shall be; and then it is an hymn of gratulation, and agreeth well with laudantium, a praise to God that these now are. Now that God glory, now earth peace. Men are now received to favour and grace. Thus; or wheter sit or esto in the optative; and then it is votum bene ominatum, 'a vow or wish,' that glory may be to God; and so to the rest."

It does seem to me that the KJV renders it as 'will towards men' because they say the action coming from God towards man. And that the Incarnation is that good-will which is open to all to respond freely unto. If this is a correct understanding of the KJ translators intent then I see nothing un-Orthodox in its rendering. For certainly the Incarnation is for all or have I mis-understood my Orthodox faith here? While "all' do not respond in kind, or as Sir Lancelot Andrews stated it, with " hymn of gratulation, and agreeth well with laudantium, a praise to God." the message of the Incarnation is open towards them ALL, in that some, coming to their senses will respond accordingly.

Sincerely,
John Curtis



#11 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 13 April 2002 - 11:45 PM

For those who are curious: Luke 2.14 is one of those passages where the manuscript witness to the original text is quite varied. The various manuscripts and patristic quotations of the passage which we have in our possession, reveal two principal versions of the phrase (you will probably need to be looking at this post on the web page, and not in email, to see the Greek properly):

1. doxa en hypsistois theo kai epi ges eirini en anthropois eudokias
Manuscript (MSS) witnesses to rendition 1: Aleph, A, B, D, W. Patristic witnesses: Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, Gaudentius, and others.

2. doxa en hypsistois theo kai epi ges eirini en anthropois eudokia
MSS witnesses to rendition 2: Aleph, B, L, Delta, Theta, Xi, Upsilon, plus over 20 miniscule manuscripts. Patristic witnesses: Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eusebius, Pseudo Athanasius, Didymus, Epiphanius, Severian, John Chrysostom, Cyril, Proclus, Theodoret, and others.

For those who are familiar with Greek, taking note of the difference in these texts (I've highlighted the only different word in bold) will reveal that in the first version, eudokia ('good will') is in the gentive singular (eudokias) while in the second it is in the nominative singular (eudokia). This difference yields two different and unambiguous translations:

1. Glory to God in the highest, and upon the earth peace among men of goodwill.

2. Glory to God in the highest, and upon the earth peace and goodwill among men.

From the translation side of things, it is important to note that neither of the two versions of the text is in the slightest bit ambiguous unto itself: if one is translating from the Greek of the first version (with the genitive eudokias), the translation must read 'peace among men of goodwill' and not 'peace and goodwill among men'. Conversely, a translation based on the Greek of the second option must read 'peace and goodwill among men' and not 'peace among men of goodwill'. There is no element of interpretation that comes into this arena: whichever version of the Greek 'original' one is using, the translation that it must yield is absolutely clear.

The question, of course, comes up in the matter of selecting which version of the Greek is 'the original'. Critical study of the manuscripts and transmission theory give good reason to believe that option 1 ('peace among men of goodwill') may be the oldest and therefore most original version of the Greek (which, we must remember, we do not actually possess) -- but this evidence is not entirely definitive.

As I've endeavoured to show through a mention of the major manuscripts and patristic sources that evidence each of the options, there is no consensus among the Fathers as to which version is proper. There are actually more quotations in the writings of patristic sources that use option 2; but some writers of the patristic era (e.g. Origen) actually use both: in some instances they quote version 1, in others they quote version 2. We cannot really say that one version is 'Orthodox' and the other is 'wrong', primarily because the Fathers show us that both versions are valuable.

Perhaps the truth of each statement is important.

INXC, Matthew

#12 Guest_Razhden Guriadze

Guest_Razhden Guriadze
  • Guests

Posted 14 April 2002 - 02:12 AM

Greetings in Christ,

Please forgive me, I did not intend to get this discussion hung on one verse.

I do not know which version of Greek New Testament the Georgian Bible was translated from.

The copy I have goes on to say "and to the rest His wrath".

I am sure that the Bible scholars know better than I which version is is better for what use.

I resign,
ICXC,
Razhden

#13 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 14 April 2002 - 10:07 AM

Dear Razhden, please do not feel bad for having 'hung up' this discussion on the details of a verse: this is precisely the kind of thing for which these discussion boards are intended. The question of the Greek texts underlying specific passages of the Scripture, especially those which have given rise to many differing English translations, is extremely interesting. It is often informative to learn that the wide variety of English translations in our possession (or other language translations) stems from the (little known) fact that we have almost as many versions of the Greek, with no real way of knowing, in many cases, which is the most original. The history behind the text is fascinating and informative, especially in the way that patristic authors made use of the different versions.

So by all means, carry on. Posted Image

As a note on your last post, you mentioned that your Georgian Bible flushed out Lk 2.14 with '...and to the rest His wrath'. I must admit that this is a version I have never seen. I have here my critical text with its listing of all the variants, but there is no mention of this extension as occurring in any MS or patristic quotation. You don't happen to know any of the history of how it's arrived in the Georgian Bible, do you?

INXC, Matthew


#14 John Curtis Dunn

John Curtis Dunn

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 14 April 2002 - 01:01 PM

Razhden Posted on Sunday, April 14,

The copy I have goes on to say "and to the rest His wrath". I am sure that the Bible scholars know better than I which version is is better for what use.


Concerning Razhaden's closing statemtent it would seem a quote from the Apostle Paul adequately expresses our Orthodox way in these matters. "Not that we lord it over your faith, but are fellow workers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. 2 Cor.:2:24 and again For we are to God a sweet smelling fragrance of Christ in those being saved and in those perishing: to some on the one hand an odor of death to death, and to others an odor of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, befoe the face of God speak we in Christ." 2 Cor. 2:15-17

On the latter verse St John Chrysostom taught us, "For some so receive this sweet smell so as to be saved, but others so as to perish. So that if anyone should be lost, the fault is from his own cause." [Hom. 5: 2 Cor.]

IMO "it is not necessary for us to concede this matter into the hands of Bible Scholars." They are servants to our Orthodox Faith/Church not LORDS over it and us. That latter position is much more evident within Protestantism than Orthodoxy. And while it would appear to me that the Georgian translator has 'garnished' the passage in order to clarify its meaning. "Peace on earth good will to men with whom God is well pleased and to the rest His wrath". That does not make the translation less valuable, especially if it is an Orthodox translation. For the 'warning' (and that is the root meaning of garnish as a transitive verb) is latent within the text.

Our Western cultures have been sensitized by Protestantism's "Bible alone" mentality. There is a prevelant idea that if we could reach some common Scholarly consensus about the "true original text" our divisions would evaporate. it does appear to me that many Scholars are in search for the elusive 'original text' not the Faith which understands the text correctly. (I am not saying All, for thankfully Matthew is among us.)

I would contend that as Orthodox Christians "All variants are open to our USE, because it is our Faith/Church which instructs us and not just a scholarly assessment of available documents. This extends beyond the sphere of Greek Manuscripts into that of Translations. All belong to us to make use. This latter idea may smack of a kind of Orthodox Triumphantalism, but it is the Trumpet I blow.

If the text under discussion had been Luke 1:28 I would have been more amenable to your statement about the KJV translators inserting an idea which is not "ORTHODOX" For their choice has resulted in much debate between Orthodox and Protestant. "Hail, thou that are highly favoured," (KJV) For their translation does not approach the Orthodox confession of the Theotokos in relation to the Incarnation.

Forgive me.

John Curtis





#15 Guest_Razhden

Guest_Razhden
  • Guests

Posted 14 April 2002 - 01:07 PM

Greetings in Christ,
Matthew,

I am feeling a little embarrassed.I do teach and have taught a class in "Reading what the Bible says , not what it means". I am seeing things I either never saw or forgot.

The "...and to the rest His wrath." it shows as footnote that "Some copies add." By the way Maybe "flushed out" was the better choice.

I feel that if we "read the words" of the Bible we can get a better sense of it. All too often, we "glaze over" the words looking for the meaning.

As you well know, there are so many "copies" out there it is hard to know which one to use.

Translators find this out very quickly. This is why we must not only ask God for guidance but a lifetime supply aspirin and rolaids.

God guide us all to where He wants us,
ICXC,
Razhden

#16 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 14 April 2002 - 02:45 PM

No need to be embarrassed at all, Razhden! As you might have been able to gather from my previous posts, this is a topic I greatly enjoy, and we are all in the process of learning when it comes to these things. I know many scholars, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, who have spent a lifetime on these matters and have written books that everyone takes as foundational in the area -- and these men and women are still very much in the process of learning. It is simply a wonderfully huge issue.

Just as one point of clarification on my earlier post: the term 'to flush out' a text doesn't imply (as it might seem to!) any negative sentiment -- it simply means to expand on what is originally there. I realised after I had posted the message that this might seem a bit of a judgmental term, which it is not meant to be.

INXC, Matthew


#17 Guest_Chad Duskin

Guest_Chad Duskin
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2002 - 05:45 AM

Razhden:
As the one who started this thread I greatly appreciate what you had to say. This kind of discussion was exactly what I wanted to have happen. I am still expectantly waiting for the Orthodox Study Bible to come out! In the mean time I wanted to see what others thought about English translations that are almost 100% controlled by Protestant groups. Not all of their work is bad, but some is and you have pointed that out.

I have recently come across the English Standard Version. Thumbing through it, it seemed pretty good. Anybody else seen it or have any thoughts? I have mostly been using the Revised Standard Version (not the New Revised Standard Version. I have heard comments about the gender inclusive language that has kept me away from it).

Please keep this discussion going! I hope someone from the translation team for the Orthodox Study Bible is reading. I would love for them to ask for feed-back when it is done in case of a revision (God willing, it won't be needed!!).

Chad


#18 John Curtis Dunn

John Curtis Dunn

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 15 April 2002 - 10:27 AM

One problem area I have with many new English translations is in the translation of monogenEs. I am curious how the Georgian translation reads John 3:16.

John Curtis


#19 Guest_Razhden

Guest_Razhden
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2002 - 01:35 PM

Greetings in Christ,
I am not failiar with the term "monogenEs" I barely know the "Q" from the "P" and the "T".
Lord guide us into Thy truth,
ICXC,
Razhden


#20 Moses Anthony

Moses Anthony

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts

Posted 16 April 2002 - 01:57 AM

Chad, John, Matthew, Razhden....,

Among Protestants to this very day; there are ongoing debates/arguements as to, which version of the Scriptures are the ones on which to base their 'faith and message.' As a Protestant I forsook the Authorized Version for the NASB, because I did not speak or at times understand the Elizabethan vernacular. I often thought that scholars would have a heart attack if for some reason God would speak to them telling them to use the New American Standard (I had a dim view of biblical scholars).

At this time I own at least six translations and two paraphrases of the Scriptures. I've read each of them from cover to cover at least once, my preference, the New American Standard. Even now as a converted Orthodox there still rages debates over who is true to the True Faith. I turn as I often did as a Protestant, to the Holy Spirit, who as Jesus said "...will guide you into all the truth". It's a good thing that He didn't say anything about which version of the Scriptures He would use to guide us.

HIS Servant
Moses




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users