Professor wants all to read one Bible

indystar/religion news service ^ | 012404 | Douglas Todd

[InvisibleChurch]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- An American academic wants to see a Bible translation, put together by scores of conservative scholars, become the one Bible everyone uses.

Alan Jacobs, an English professor at Wheaton College near Chicago, said the new English Standard Version Bible, whose translation was overseen by Vancouver's J.I. Packer, is the only one with the potential to become the universal Bible of all English-speaking Christians.

[sonrise57]

They also read the Bible in the language that it was written in.

[IronJack]

There is something magical about the language in the King James that is lost if one disposes of the "Yea, verily's" and the "Whither goest's." I'm not saying that the language should be inaccessible, but for pure poetic purposes, "modernizing" Scriptural English is like rewriting a Shakespeare sonnet in ebonics.

The words should be as majestic as the spirit they try to convey.

[Doug Loss]

I've got to tell you as an Orthodox Christian, that this idea is a complete non-starter. The Orthodox Churches will never agree on an English translation of the Bible that doesn't reflect their understanding of the meaning of the canonical texts. Whether this ESV would do so, I don't know. But I'd be very surprised to hear that it does.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Topics of this nature pop up here periodically. My two cents is that if you are really interested in the content of the New Testament you have to learn to read the original language which is Koine - the version of Greek which was common in the area from about 300BC until 300 AD.

The other problem is that there are many versions of the same text which differ slightly in content. (A major problem exists because there are two different versions of Acts one much longer than the other.) Once you determine which version you want to read and translate you are just beginning.

The meaning of some of Paul's texts are obscure even when you do know the Greek. He could not write short declarative sentences. Consequently, there are variations in the translations into English.

The other major hurdle is how the translate Greek participles. The Greeks used them a lot and, apparently, their meaning could vary. This is another reason that translations differ.

Another major difficulty in Greek is that they thought differently than we do today. In there language they were not particularly interested if something happened in the past, in the present, or in the future. They instead were interested in whether an action happened or didn't happen. They were also interested in whether that action was over and complete or whether the effects of that action continue into the future and are acting now at the present time. For example, think of the resurrection, an action that happened in the past which has continuing meaning at the present and will continue to have meaning into the future.

My humble suggestion is to check out the local colleges and find one which teaches Biblical Greek and take the courses. Then you well have a much deeper appreciation of what the texts state.

[lupie]

I basically use the NASB but also the NJKV and the KJV, sometimes the RSV and recently have picked up what looks to be an interesting version called "The Complete Jewish Bible". It is a combination somewhat of a paraphrase from the old English sounding Jewish bible (JPS) and a thought by thought translation of the NT is from the Greek. It was written by a Jewish man who later in life, at 37 became a Messianic Jew, David Stern. Although he had a PhD in economics, he went back to study Christianity and then Judaism at their respective types of universities. One of his reasons to make the translation was to have something for Messianic Communities to read and to help bridge some of the gap between Jews and Christiansm and to restore the unified Jewishness of the entire Bible.

I am in the process of reading through the CJB in parallel with my regular reading and so far, I find it a nice translation, although I prefer a word by word, not a thought by thought or paraphrase. I would probably not base any theology on at the moment, because I just don't know enough or have read enough yet, but it is interesting to read scripture from a Jewish perspective. The same, yet different.

[BibChr]

I don't think you read the article, in which the professor points to one specific, existing translation: the ESV. The ESV is none of the things you rightly abhor.

I have very mixed feelings about it (having studied Hebrew and Greek for nigh-on thirty years), but it is conservative.

Dan

[TommyDale]

I suppose this professor thinks we should all attend one church as well?

[Prodigal Son]

I kind of like the King James myself. That's what I grew up with. I've read some passages from new versions of the Bible and it just wasn't the same.

I can sort of understand this person's point. Consider the Constitution. I don't see how it could have beeen written much plainer but look at how far apart some of the differing interpretations of that document are. Now imagine if there were a dozen versions of the Constitution. It would be madness.

However, I don't see the professor's idea working though. It would be kind of hard to force on version of the Bible on everybody.

[BibChr]

It might interest you to know that the ESV is based on the RSV, but redone from a Bible-believing perspective.

Dan

[bootless]

Wjat a terrible idea. Sounds like he wants us all to read the same Q'uran ... er ...wait - maybe he's closet Taliban?!

I just got myself a copy of The Message for Christmas, and I love it.

[Pablo64]

"You can read 8 different Bibles with out a ounce of revelation without the Holy Spirit"

I would agree with that statement.

(By the way, you should correct the usage of the word "to" vs. "too" in your tagline....unless I just completely missed the sarcasm, in which case, ignore this.)

[BlackElk]

You will notice that I am minding my Catholic business on what is essentially a sincere discussion among the reformed.

[BibChr]

Well, I hadn't noticed, but... OK. Now I do. Good Elk!

Dan
(c8

[trebb]

I've tested positive for NIV.

However, I keep the NKJV and NASB nearby.

Yes - the NIV works best for me because I don't have to spend so much time trying to figure out what it says and can spend more energy on what it means.

[BibChr]

John Piper advocates this same thing.

I've studied the ESV, and have very mixed feelings about it. It's "conservative" in both a good and a bad sense. Conservative theologically, in approaching the Bible as it is, the Word of God (good). But conservative also in the sense that it does not change things that, almost beyond rational argument, cry out to be changed. For instance, there simply IS no rational defense for Christian translations continuing the LORD/Lord/Lord GOD insanity, instead of simply saying "Yahweh" when the text says "Yahweh." It's hard to defend translating dikaios as "righteous," but dikaioo as "justify," so that English readers do not know that (A) the words are related and (B) the latter means "to declare righteous."

I could go on and on.

I'd really like to see a thoroughgoing revision of the ESV; but it being so new, that isn't going to happen.

I have found a great deal to like about the Christian Standard Bible, but it paraphrases to a strange degree, and varies Messiah/Christ inexplicably in the NT in rendering Christos. But at least they use "Yahweh"...sometimes!

Dan

[BibChr]

I would say that a good dose of the ESV will cure that nasty NIV bug. It's about as smooth reading, but without most of the pre-digested interpretive paramangling... er, paraphrasing.

Dan
(c;

[lupie]

It might interest you to know that the ESV is based on the RSV, but redone from a Bible-believing perspective.

Really? From what I have read here it sounds intriguing enough to at least investigate it before purchasing one. I just did a quick search through all my online bible search engines and found one that uses it. Maybe I will try to remember to read through it in parallel. Sigh.. I wish I was fluent in Hebrew and Greek, but I have always been "language challenged" :)

[TSgt]

I think I'll stick with the King James version:

Revelation:

18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[padfoot_lover]

The Navarre is great! I have a few of the Gospels, but need to buy the rest. Not very portable, though :-) I have the New Jerusalem Bible too, it has very traditional language. I bought it from EWTN.

[COBOL2Java]

I'm an interpreter for the deaf for church services, and during my preparation, I study the upcoming scripture readings in several different translations. When translating English into American Sign Language, I've found that the more ways in which I can see how a passage can be rendered in English, the better I can aid the deaf worshiper in grasping God's word.