Church translations of the Bible

[Michelle]

I have a question and I wasn't sure where to put it.

Whenever i talk to my family about Bibles they always seem to think that the only Bibles we should use is the one that they have in the Church. I'm just wondering why they think this. Personally I like to use the NASB, when i show it to one of them they seem to think they need to check with the priest. When talking to my aunt yesterday she said something like if a church doesn't go back and translate the Bible from the original language itself then it's not valid. Where does the idea that each church have its own Bible come from? What does the church really have to say about this?

[Irene]

Dear Michelle, I'll give you my understanding about the Bible as I haven't noticed anyone answer your question yet.

Each time a new version of the Bible comes out it is altered "to make it easier to understand" and because of this some of the meaning changes. When the Bible was translated to English originally, for some words there was no English equivalent, so we lost a little bit of the meaning of the Bible from the time of the KJV.

The following is a quote from an article on the fatheralexander.org website: "A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries many words were added or omitted. This was especially so before the printing press, and there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians. The simple purpose of the Bible is to be read and known by all the peoples of the world in their own languages in its pure and true form -in its original languages and in its many translations."

A couple of articles to read if you are interested:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/bible_languages.htm#n3
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/bible_intro_e.htm

In Christ
irene

PS reading the KJV can be difficult because it isn't modern English, sometimes I think "what on earth have I just read? However if you perservere (and pray for help in understanding)suddenly understanding will come to you

[Michelle]

each Bible is written differently, some are written more for study and some are written more for reading, like a story form.

http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/index.php

i think each Bible has something different to offer. why should we limit ourselves just to KJ? i mean, i like KJ, sometimes things are written much better in there than in NAS but sometimes NAS says it better....

[Irene]

I think the important thing is just to read the Bible, most people don't seem to, which is a shame.

In Christ
irene

[Donald L McDaniel]

Irene, the New American Standard Bible WAS translated from the original languages.

Since it is mainly a Protestant translation, I'm quite sure that any reference which can be read to give credance to "Catholicism" was glossed over or re-translated in such a way that it appears fully "Protestant/Evangelical" in meaning.

Other than that, it is an excellent and very scholarly translation.

If you prefer a more "Catholic" understanding of the Holy Scriptures, try the "New American Bible" (The Roman Catholic response to the New American Standard Bible). It reads much like the NASB, and even to using the same exact wording and grammar as the NASB in many passages, but is translated with a more "Catholic" flavor.

It too was translated from the original languages, and is not a paraphrase or reworking of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

I don't understand this fixation on the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures. Even many super-rightwing Evangelicals here in the States have this same fixation. As I am attempting to return to Apostolic Christianity, I try to stay away from the KJV, and prefer other more scholarly (and less-biased) translations.

Donald

[Bogdan]

I personally stick to translations that have been blessed by Holy Synods of the Orthodox church. There are individual ones such as the greek synod and the serbian synod. I'm not sure if the russians have their own synod version, but if they don't I'm sure it's in the works. As for good english translations, I stick to the Orthodox study bible. It is based on the KJV but the orthodox notes definately make it much much easier to get through. I think if I was put on the spot to make another choice, I would actually read both texts. I think it would be very beneficial to read a chapter from KJV in the morning and the same chapter from NASB that afternoon, and allow myself to explore the differences through Orthodox prayer and contemplation. I think this triad of faith would balance the mistakes made in translation. This would totally just be my opinion, but I hope it helps!

[Donald L McDaniel]

Thank you, Bogdan, for your kind reply.

What does your name mean (I know that "Bog" is a Serb/Russian word meaning "God", but don't know what the suffix "dan" means)?

I do not speak or read any language other than American English (and that not as well as I might think), so the Greek and Russian Synodal versions are out of the question.

As to the KJV, I do not like it. Period. In the first place, the King who sponsored its translation and publishing was a homosexual, and many in his court were also homosexuals, including many of the Clergy. I am not fully convinced of its verity to this day, especially since so many schismatics (and especially deeply heretical ones, with very strange understandings of the Godhead) make a religious duty out of reading it, and it alone, nowadays -- even to the point of making an idol out of the book. They actually believe that the Book is interchangeable with the Words of God spoken from His Mouth during the Creation. This, to me, is an idol.

Nor do I do not trust any of the divines of the church existing in England at the time of its translation. They were very corrupted by the Monarchy and aristocracy of England. In addition, they were under much pressure from their King to produce a work which he would approve of. This king was intimately involved in its translation.

Nor do I trust the word of schismatics and heretics as to its verity. Even Joseph Smith made a minor-revision of this version (although he apparently had no knowledge of the source texts, or of their languages -- He was nothing but an ignorant countrified person, who fancied himself a "seer", and sold himself to his followers as this, and to their everlasting shame, they followed him in DROVES), and they call it the "KJV" to this very day, and pass it out freely to anyone, although I am fully convinced that this con-man and his inner circle added a few changes here and there, so that it would imply an agreement with his "Book of Mormon" and other strange Neo-Gnostic teachings of his "church".

I do not care at all that many Orthodox Synods approve of its exclusive use by their jurisdictions and parishoners. After all, even those good Bishops are only men, and all men are able to make mistakes. I am fully convinced that they have made a mistake in approving of its "official" use.

I do like the NASB, since I am pretty convinced that it was honestly translated by deeply religious and very moral scholars, some of whom were not Evangelicals at all (although the majority were), with more of a Catholic understanding of Scripture. They were all first-rate, well-respected, and very honest scholars of the Koine Greek, Aramic, and Hebrew of the Bible in their various fields of study.

Compare the NASB with the NAB (New American Bible) of the Roman Church -- the only Bible (other than the Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Rheims-Douay translation) which is approved officially for all American Catholics to read and study as the Word of God. You will find that the two versions read much the same, even down to their respective grammar and actual wordings (except that the NAB includes the Deutero-Canonical books, along with other Catholic footnotes and references), while the NASB (an Evangelical translation) does not. The NASB was newly-translated from the authentic source texts of Greek (many, many varied source texts), Aramaic, "Church Coptic", and others, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Church Fathers (I don't know about the NAB, though I do believe it was also translated from similar source texts, it is so much like the NASB.)

Their goal in translating was to remain as close as possible to the literal meaning of the original texts, and at the same time to maintain, as much as possible, the Holiness of God, while giving more readability for Americans.

It is completely translated into Standard American English, and has been since the mid '50s or early '60s. I do believe, however, that they used the older American Standard Bible's (itself a revision of the English Authorized version of the time [the "Revised Version"] translation principles as the basis for their translation.

If I had to choose between the two, I would now choose the NAB, rather than the NASB, since it is at least a "Catholic" translation, if not an "Eastern Orthodox" translation.

But I stay away from the KJV as much as possible, although I do have both a KJV and an ASV in my electronic Bible. The only hard-copy Bible I have is a NASB Study Bible (with Protestant/Evangelical notes and references).

I have also thumbed through many, many English versions of the Bible, including the Revised Standard version (which I like) and the Jerusalem Bible (which I cannot endure because of its extremely "high-fallutin" language. I mean, its language is so intellectual, that it dulls the sharpness of the Holy Scriptures). The NIV is much too Protestant for me, and is also much too used by the various heretical sects for me to trust, especially by the various Pentecostals, Charismatics, and other such sects. It too dulls the sharpness of the Holy Scriptures. Almost other English versions also dull the sharpness of the Holy Scriptures.

I am much too old to try to attempt to learn Greek or Russian (I'm 60, almost 61), though I can make out a few isolated words here and there, very slowly, but much too slowly to ever make any sense of the text, since I have no grasp of the grammar of the languages, though I can make out most of the characters, and know their Roman cognates. It would have been better if I had grown up with one of the Church languages, but I did not, so I do not have that advantage.

I must trust the honest scholarship of others better than I, and read English if I want to approach the Scriptures on a personal level.

I simply do not trust the KJV. There is just no other way to put it. This is probably very vain of me, I know. After all, who am I, a simple layman, to question our Holy Bishops? I am sure that our Lord will bring me to task for this attitude, eventually. I can only hope for His mercy until that Day.

I hope I have not disappointed or upset you or any Orthodox Bishop, priest, or person in any way, but that is the way it must be, until I stand before Christ, and hear His Judgment on my life. I will be able to understand Him fully then, as He fully understands me now. And I will know Him fully then, as I am fully known by Him now.

I will be bereft of any excuse at that time, for I shall be stripped bare before Him, His Father, their Angels, all the Prophets of the One and Only God, the Pure and Ever-Virgin obedient Mother of God, all of Christ's brothers, all the Apostles of Christ and their successors, all Saints and The Holy Martyrs, St. Constantine the Champion of the Holy Orthodox Church, and its Holy Bishops and Priests, His holy Mother, St. Helena, the Discoverer of the True Cross, the whole Church of the First-Born enrolled in Heaven, all holy Bishops and Priests, all devoted Monks, and all others, small or great, on that Great and Terrible Day.

What a terrible Day that will be! The Heavens themselves will shake at Their Terrible Presence, and no man will be able to stand before Them faultless. Even that holy day the Lawgiver brought the Ten Words from the Holy Mountain to all the People at once, when they all shook with fear at the Presence of their Unknown God of Sound and Fire, and told him to tell that One not to visit them any more with His Presence, for fear of dying; eevn that day will pale in comparison to the Terrible Day of Their Revelation and our Judgment. May we all be found not wanting in that Day.

My only hope that Day (and is now, daily) will be His Ever-lasting Mercy and Kindness. May none be rejected, and sent to the demons and the Darkness and Fire, in that Day.

To Him be all glory in the Earth, and the Heavens, with His Father, in the Spirit.

I am yours, always a devoted (and very poor and ignorant) bond-slave of Jesus Christ, our Lord,

Donald L McDaniel, a sinner and layman.

[Robert Hegwood]

Our archbishop uses the KJV and it is what we use in our parish.

If I had to venture a guess I would say the sticking power of the KJV has to do with a potent factors.

I have been told by priests that the KJV is the most liturgically correct of all translations.

It's language is certainly the most beautiful and I think we respond to it more liturgically than we do to modern translations that sound as dry as chalk or trendy always trying to be more current than thou. There is an agelessness and grandeur to the cadance of the KJV...a poetry if you will that is just absent from all the other translantions no matter how accurate they are otherwise.

Also unlike other translations the KJV is a translation borne out of the whole English church of its time...not just little cabals of biblical literati at this or that university or institute trying to put together yet another tidy job of stale scholarship...or in the service of some questionable agenda.

That said, it would be good if there were a genuine English Orthodox translation of the Holy Scriptures...and if there ever is one I hope it borrows very heavily from the language and cadence of the KJV.

In a way the language of the KVJ has a similar liturgical resonnance and authority that Church Slavonic has for Russian Orthodox...or maybe Koine to the Greeks. It is our Anglo-Koine-Slavonic. It is the traditional Church language of English speaking peoples...and it deserves to be baptised into the Orthodoxy of the English speaking world, not set aside for new, the dried and true, and the trendy. It has ancient landmark status and should remain as our standard both for Scripture but in the composition of prayers, akathists and other spiritual works for use within the Church.

Its no harder to understand than Shakespeare...and we expect our children to be familiar with his works...the KJV should then present little obstical for the student soul.

[Moses Anthony]

Years ago when I was a member of the USAF, TDY (temporary duty) overseas; I made the statement that "If God directed some protestatnt pastors to us the NASB, they would probably have a heart attack." I used the NASB at the time, and so was highly distrustful of the Bible used by the intellectually acute, but spiritually dead, the RSV.

The NASB was the American version of the American Standard Version (ASV). The ASV while not using the exact same language as the KJV, still reads a lot the same. I purchased it because it was written with the "Charismatic" Christian in mind. With the exception of the American Bible favored by the RC, I have , or have owned nearly every version of the Bible produced -KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, Amplified, TEV, Paraphrased, New Paraphrased.

If one wants to use the most Catholic of them all, you'd most likely have to wait for the one being worked on through the auspices of the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, otherwise known as The Old Testament Project.

Various "Bibles" have their own pros and cons; none of which are to be discounted. The Moderator of this site posted a piece years ago, which if prodded, he might retrieve from the archives and post here, as this thread is pretty much a rehash of one years ago.

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Michelle]

Donald, very good post... i learned a lot.

i'm glad to see that you have a strong relationship with God. your light shines, and that is awesome.

[Sean Kealey]

I agree with Donald and was happy to see someone say those things about the KJV. Also the NIV and The New Living Translation and such as those are just terrible. I read the NASB for a good period of time and am now using the English Standard Version. It is almost identical to the NASB but where the ESV differs I believe it is more accurate. Does anyone have any thoughts on Kenneth Wuest's translation? It is only of the New Testament and it is longer because he tried to capture in english what was said in the greek. For instance, the ESV translates Romans 12:2 as "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..." whereas in the Wuest, trying to bring out the fuller meaning of the greek says, "Stop assuming an outward expression that does not come from within yourself and is not representative of what you are in your inner nature but is put on from the outside and patterned after this age, but change you outward expression to one that comes from within yourself and is representative of what you are in your inner nature." Sometimes it's a bit hard to follow, other times it's simply beautiful. Just curious if anyone here has read it or had any thoughts on it.

[Bogdan]

Donald, your reply was inspiring, to say the least.

First, you are correct that "Bog" means "God". "dan" translates to "day" so technically, it means "God's day" which is either interpreted as being Sunday, God's day, or the day of reckoning you so eloquently described above. To put it in perspective, in english my name would be Theodore. Anyway, the second part of my name has changed over the last thousand years, for it used to be "dar" which means "gift". This is the sense in which my parents named me, "God's gift". This is two fold because I was the first child, and my parents were told that my mother would not be able to have children. What do doctor's know anyway right? No offense intended there, just a small joke; some of my best friends are doctors and I respect the profession greatly for its general and personal benefits!

Second, I wasn't aware of the wide discrepancy between believing the KJV was put together by the most Orthodox of English christianity, and believing it was the decree of a homosexual king. This is a very troubling difference both spiritually and historically and one which I will put on my list of things to explore. Until then, I can only pray for understanding God's truth as best I can, from whatever version I am reading. I am VERY VERY VERY thankful now for my Serbian version, and feel a great sorrow that you are unable to explore Holy Scripture in any of these languages. Don't get me wrong, I love being able to explore Scripture in the language I use every day; however there is something about reading it in a native Orthodox tongue that just adds another level to everything. Perhaps that is overly bold of me, but I am sure I will be standing right below you on judgment day for such thoughts, and many others that pop into my head.

In any case, there is one thing you pointed out that I will walk away from this discussion keeping in the front of my mind whenever I approach the Bible. No matter which version I choose to read for whatever reason, or how completely accurate it might be, I must at some point make that choice and be at peace with it. At a certain point, you have to stop answering the devils many questions and just take a stand. You have boldly done such a thing and I commend you for it. The most difficult part is sticking to your decision, for temptation does not end with the decision, it only signals the beginning. This I will try in my own sinful way to emulate, and I thank you for the inspiration to do so.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All,

For reasons known only to me, I made a copy of the post mentioned above, and keep it inside one of my Bibles.

Go to the Monachos archives and find the thread Bible Translations. From there look up the date Wed, 10 Apr 2002. The author is Matthew C. Steenburg.

Other than that, the best one can do for a complete Bible translation with notes; from the Orthodox perspective, is to await the publication of The Old Testament Project.

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Donald L McDaniel]

Bogdan, the administrators of this board, and others who responded to my post:

Thank you for your kind reception of my unworthy words. It does give me hope to continue on in my quest to return to the Church of the Apostles. And thank you, worthy administrators of this board, for allowing my reply to be posted at all. I am more than positive that my heretical past has shown through somewhat, but that is my past. I can only continually seek for God's and the Church's forgiveness.

I made the decision to abandon the KJV several years ago, when I began departing from Pentecostalism and other more radical forms of heresy. I have kept to this decision (mostly) since. I do not have a KJV (hard copy) Bible in my house (although I do have an electronic version (which actually came with the CD Bible I bought (the best one I could find for Macintosh).

I would prefer to have been able to purchase the Logos Computer Bible (not the actual name, as I can't quite put my finger on the actual title at present), but there is at present no released Mac version, though there is one in the works for the Mac (see http://www.logos.com/mac).

Your unworthy servant in Christ,

Donald

[Michelle]

It is true that Satan will take any and every little crack in our walk to sneak in and place doubt within our minds.

I think that every single Bible translation has something different to offer. And I also have the faith that God is behind each one, that He will guide me and others to get the answers He wants us to get, when He wants us to get them.

The most important thing while reading His Word, is to also be praying. Anything is possible through Him. We need to keep our personal relationship with God above all else. Trust Him to give us the knowledge we seek, and not rely on ourselves.

[Donald L McDaniel]

Michelle, thank you for your kind words.

But I must question your estimation of my relationship with our God.

My relationship with the Glorious One is shaky at best, and I am still wandering around in the dark, mostly. I feel my way as I go, like the blind man I truly am. Please do not take me as an example of a man whose Light shines brightly. If the Light shines in me at all, it is at best extremely dim, and apt to be put out by the winds of this life at any tiime.

Rather look to your Holy Bishop as an example of Christlikeness, if you will.

He will lead you to deification in Christ, while I am filled with heresy and all sorts of sinfullness, none of which you should emulate.

I am far, far, away from such an august position as his, I assure you.

Your unworthy servant in Christ,

Donald

[Michelle]

The only example of Christlikeness i follow is Christ himself. it's just nice to see people pursuing God. I don't see a lot of it myself, which is one reason i left the church. but that's a whole different discussion.

Just stick with it, our lights don't always shine as bright as they should, but they still shine.

[Alex Haig]

The Bible is understood with the help of the Church: the Bible is not a stand alone document but part of Holy Tradition. We cannot study the Bible without the Church since we would have no one to guide us (see Acts 8:31).

With this in mind the differences between the bibles mentioned are perhaps not so significant: so long as we interpret the Bible with the mind of the Church.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Alec Lowly]

"I wasn't aware of the wide discrepancy between believing the KJV was put together by the most Orthodox of English christianity, and believing it was the decree of a homosexual king. This is a very troubling difference both spiritually and historically and one which I will put on my list of things to explore."

Life has its ironies, such as feeling compelled to rise to the defense of a Protestant Bible ...

That James I may or may not have been homosexual is irrelevant to the history of the King James Bible. The king did not do any of the translating -- he commissioned 54 of the finest scholars he could find to do the translating. The purpose was to provide the Church of England with a common book of scripture for worship, devotion and study.

Either by the will of God or sheer coincidence, the King James Bible emerged during the period of a golden flowering of the English tongue -- the period of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Thomas Campion, Ben Jonson, John Donne, etc.

Whatever its faults may be, the King James Bible is unrivaled in English for the magnificence of its language. In that regard, all subsequent English translations stand in its shadow.

The King James Bible was the standard Bible of the English-speaking world for 300 years. Millions of people turned to Jesus Christ by the reading of the King James Bible.

Enough, please. Let's show a little respect where respect is most certainly due.

[Olga]

Thank you, Bogdan for the explanation of the origin of your name, especially the -dan/-dar variants. I was unaware that "dan" is the Serbian version of the Slavonic "dyen". If your parents were Greek, then, you would have been called either Kyriakos (of the Lord's Day), or Theokharis (God's gift/grace)! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

The much earlier post (from 2002) on various Bible translations, is available via this link (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4229&post=764#POST764).

It is part of a lengthy thread called Bible Translations (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4229/871.html).

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Mr Lowly wrote:


That James I may or may not have been homosexual is irrelevant to the history of the King James Bible. The king did not do any of the translating -- he commissioned 54 of the finest scholars he could find to do the translating. The purpose was to provide the Church of England with a common book of scripture for worship, devotion and study.

[...] Whatever its faults may be, the King James Bible is unrivaled in English for the magnificence of its language. In that regard, all subsequent English translations stand in its shadow.

I've found this whole thread very interesting, and particularly appreciate this response. As I noted in my post back in 2002 (referenced above), there are plenty of faults with the KJV as a translation, grounded in availability, use and preference of source texts, English idiom, etc.; but I tend to agree with Alec that the text produced has to be examined in its own right, rather than in supposed influences over its production had by the monarch. If one wishes to cite credible deficiencies in the text, they can be found in the limited breadth of source texts used in the translation, in certain Hebraicisms being consistently mis-translated, of at times a striving for poeticism over direct translation -- and in the modern day, the simple fact that English idiom and expression has changed substantially since the translation was produced, and some phrases are archaic to the current ear, while others have dramatically different meanings today (e.g. what it means for one's bowels to move).

Nonetheless, the KJV has done what few -- if any -- English translations of scripture since have done, and that is capture a certain spirit of elevated reverence through the language employed in translation. While at times this presents a weakness in the translation, in terms of conveying the authentic meaning, in far more circumstances the beauty of the text, and its elevation of the language above the vernacular to something distinct, different from everyday speech, has a kind of 'liturgical' power to it that has been cherished for centuries -- including in the Orthodox Church.

Nevertheless, strengths and weaknesses have to be addressed together. There is much of beauty, there is much of flaw. The KJV is not the translation blessed for use in most of our parishes in Britain, for example (though it is not forbidden), and this is the land that produced it.

INXC, Matthew

[Bogdan]

I forget sometimes when I involve myself in these discussions that many, if not all of you have access to a much wider range of information and experience, as well as much higher involvment on this forum than I do. Mr. Lowly and Steenberg may very well be right in THEIR assesment of the KJV. The fact that I know nothing of the true history or use of this Bible is part of the very reason I said I needed to look into it more! I was in no way trying to insinuate that I believed its heretical background. Just out of good manners, I try to make sure I do my own research before formulating an opinion on any subject, this one not excluded.

On this note I will repeat what I stated in my last post. It is good to pick a book, whichever that may be and for whatever reasons, and stick to it. Guidance is of course necessary, and even though 99% of the time I use a Synodal version of the bible, I still ask my preist on a regular basis for guidance. Even though it is the most important one, in the end it is still just a book. Thank you all for opening my eyes to the issues at hand, I feel much more compelled to explore the english versions and their varied histories. I can't wait to compare it to my Serbian one (at least internally).

Olga,
I'm glad you enjoyed my explanation, it's nice to see that even I can give something to this community which has opened my eyes to so many things! I thank you as well for the greek translations..my brother goes to a Greek Orthodox Seminay (Holy Cross, Boston) and I can not wait to make him call me by those names!! If he's going to be learning all that greek, he may as well use it!

[Clint Sharpley]

To Donald Mc Daniel and others,

Sadly, I believe your misgivings concerning KJV are well justified. It has long been known that inferior Greek texts were used. Sometimes no Greek text was used and the Latin Vulgate was used for filler. It is, as you said, not dependable. It would be bad enough if this were due to a lack of careful scholarship at the time.

However, the book God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson provides a fairly recent breakthrough in scholarship concerning the motives of the writing of KJV. Put simply, it was designed to destroy the successful Geneva Bible. The Bishop's Bible had been a first attempt at this but had failed. This version succeeded because it was not a miserable substitute as far as literature was concerned and also because it was given the force of law by a highly motivated and ruthless king.

The Geneva Bible was subsequently banned for anything but private use. The agenda of a heavy handed monarchy shows immediately in the translation. Just one example: Geneva had over 400 occurences of the word tyrant. The word is not to be found in the KJV. (p. 58) These were secular men, men of not just learning, but also of position and means.

Let me deal with a question that one of you raised. Does it matter that the King was a flaming homosexual, one who went so far as to fondle a young boy on the throne? Well, it might if men on the committee were jockeying for favor by supplying him with boys. Read the book. The committees appears to be a sham. The are few surviving notes when there should have been many. There is no extant manuscript. It appears that the printer was the editor as well. Did the whole thing come from the pen of one man? A man who was politically chosen and backed? A man who was part of a powerful organization to which the King also belonged, a gnostic organization whose agenda would be thoroughtly anti-Christian? Does this explain the inclusion of the snake cult in the long ending of Mark? An Islamic view of tolerance in the pericope of adultery? Not all of these questions are raised by the book (the last two or three are mine), but the data is there that gives rise to such suspicions.

The puritans refused to use KJV when they came to America, calling it godless. Isn't it ironic that some uninformed right wing Americans now revere the KJV and the Puritans? Just thought a little history might be informative for the puposes of this discussion.

Blessings to all,
Athanasios

[Alec Lowly]

Athanasios writes:


"Let me deal with a question that one of you raised. Does it matter that the King was a flaming homosexual, one who went so far as to fondle a young boy on the throne? Well, it might if men on the committee were jockeying for favor by supplying him with boys. Read the book."

So did the translators provide the king with boys? That's much too incendiary a question to be left hanging. That's not fair. Yes or no, please?


" ... a powerful organization to which the King also belonged, a gnostic organization whose agenda would be thoroughtly anti-Christian?"

Please identify this organization.


"The puritans refused to use KJV when they came to America, calling it godless. Isn't it ironic that some uninformed right wing Americans now revere the KJV and the Puritans?"

Yes, you're right, it is ironic.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Doug Gwinn]

VERY interesting thread.

I think that what is important about translations is not what I think of them, but "Is it accurate?" Since some better original source documents have been found since King Jimmy, I think that translation is somewhat suspect. It IS poetic, and does lend itself to Liturgy, so I don't have serious problems with it in the Liturgy as long as it's not being dissected to discern doctrinal truths.

English is an imprecise language compared to Greek. Therefore if there is a choice of what English word to use, one's theological bias may affect the translation. My Dad taught NT and Koine Greek and ALWAYS went back to his Greek Bible. I was constantly amazed at the great nuances he was able to pull out, and in places nearly completely different meanings than other translations.

Further, understanding the cultural milieu out of which the original documents were written is important. Example: The Prodigal Son. Anyone who has lived in the Middle East very long will realize that NO adult man, and especially one that was prominent would EVER run to anything--it is beneath one's dignity. "...But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and RAN...." Wow!

Secondly, communication is important. I grew up with the KJV though I abandoned it in high school and have heard it a lot, but to many people without a Christian background it may be a problem--clearly we don't talk that way anymore, and many words have changed meaning. Therefore, it may not be the best translation to communicate with modern man.

So, I think they all have inherent problems. Fortunately as Orthodox, we have the Church's history of interpretation to guide us as several have said, and until we can get more accurate translations that communicate, we don't have to be totally frustrated.

Doug

[Matthew Panchisin]

I think Dr. Steenberg was doing some work on the Orthodox Study Bible and the Septuagint Old Testament suggested as available this year. I was wondering if perhaps more patristic commentary would be presented this time in the footnotes section? Seize the moments?


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Christophoros]

Everyone seems to forget that there already is one English translation - of the New Testament, at least - that has been produced by the Church: "The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Translated into English from the Approved Greek Text of the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Greece," by Metropolitan Fan S. Noli. This is the official translation of the Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese of the OCA. It isn't an elegant translation, but very comprehensible. It's available online at:

http://english.shqiptarortodoks.com/texts/biblical/noli-new-testament.html

and hardbound copies are available from available from St. George Cathedral (523 East Broadway, South Boston, MA, 02127) for $40 plus $6 shipping.

In Christ,
Chris