Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:24 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Here you go. It sums up my argument plus adds a couple.
I had no idea!!!!!
Translating "passover" as "Easter" here would ruin the metaphor.
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Hmm...you would prefer "after Passover" or "after the Passover" here?
"Pascua" in Spanish is either "Easter" or "Passover" depending on the context.
I would not have interpreted "Easter" here as Herod's pagan celebration though, but rather as a commemoration of the Resurrection, even if it wasn't officially done yet.
Thanks diego, there was some good stuff in the especially the wording changes having to do with the fact that salvation can be lost if one chooses to leave Christ.
It's not a question of what I prefer, but rather of what it is.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Why not translate "Pascha" as it is translated in all other places? Why make an exception? Are metaphors more important than accuracy?
If it pleased God to use the Greek word for passover, no argument is sufficient to use an unrelated word.
There are problems with almost every English translation of the Bible. It helps to be aware of them.
I generally quote from the King James Version, because it was the standard Bible in England, known to English writers for hundreds of years and influencing numerous poems and novels, and the style is beautiful. There are errors in translation, but they are not all that numerous.
When I taught the Bible I preferred to use the Revised Standard Version. This version was agreed to by a committee of Catholic and Protestant scholars, and where they disagreed the differences are clearly noted. It is based on the KJV, but it corrects those kinds of errors. Unfortunately, it also changes “thou” to you, which I think was unnecessary.
Since the RSV, there have been numerous translations, and most of them have gone sharply downhill. The NRSV introduces numerous errors in the name of feminism and political correctness. The more recent the translation, the more likely that it has been infested by political correctness or dissent. The Catholic version used in the liturgy, the NAB, is atrocious in style and frequently misleading in translation.
The Catholic translators of the Jerusalem Bible did a good job, but it never widely caught on.
Yes, certainly it is foolish to imagine that the KJV is inerrant. But it remains a better translation than most of the politically correct junk that has been published in recent years.
Ignatius Press has put the RSV back into print, and that’s the one I’d generally recommend. It includes what Protestants refer to as the Apocryphal books, but they are clearly labeled as such in case Protestant readers are worried about that. And in fact Protestants like John Milton read and used many of the Apocryphal books without any fear of being contaminated.
As I told Protestants who were assigned this text for the class, you get more for your money, and you can decide for yourself whether they are worth reading.
Well, it just goes to show that the KJV is a defective translation. This is just one example of the defects that exist throughout.
Unfortunately, this defect in a Protestant version of Scripture has been the call for a whole lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. The amusing thing is that the English version of Scripture authorized by the Church (the Douay-Rheims version) that was in existence prior to the KJV actually used the word “Pasch” — the more accurate term, as indicated by the author of this article.
Thanks for posting it, and have a wonderful celebration of the Resurrection of Our Lord.
Narses, thanks for pinging me to this thread.
I agree for the most part. I "think" scripture in King James and turn to it first when researching passages.
I was raised in a Baptist church and was taught that the newer translations or versions were not used in our churches because they left out the phrase “the blood” of Christ.
Examples of omissions in the NIV & NAS are Colossians 1:14 “through his blood” omitted,
Romans 3:25 “in his blood” omitted,
Ephesians 1:7 “through his blood” omitted.
Regarding marriage the NIV cuts Matthew 19:5, short, leaving out “...and they twain shall be one flesh.” v6 (is missing) “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Although these are small omissions, that was the
argument for KJV. I have enjoyed reading your article regarding KJV mistakes. Definitely worth pondering.
Young's Literal Translation: [Colossians 1:14] In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Young's: [Roman 3:25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God
Also Young's: [Ephesians 1:7] In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace
I have found that Young's Literal Translation helps me the most when trying to figure out just exactly what it is I am reading. The translation...like it says....is literal, so it is difficult to read some passages. I do feel, although it is a very honest attempt to faithfully translate.
All human translations are just that....they are not inspired....nor are they divine!
When all else fails read “From the Translators to the Reader” in the old KJV.
• 12 Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church:
• 13 as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood.
As for Acts 12:4, I'm not sure what they were thinking. There are various philosophies of translation, one of which is that word A in language B always equals word C of language D.
Another is that the translator *really* has to know the context.
Also:
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?
In the KJV NT every italicized word is one that was supplied by the KJV writers to help smooth out translation difficulties. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not.
An interlinear NT of the Stephens text is very enlightening, especially in dealing with KJV only types.
On a separate note, the week Jesus died had two sabbaths; one the the weekly sabbath then the ‘high’ sabbath.
Jesus was arrested and tried then put to death Wednesday afternoon, spent three days and three nights in the grave, and was already up and about when the women and Peter went to his grave.
So Good Friday is just another created holiday that smudges the truth of the Resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.