The other day I asked about what passages people look at when comparing Bible versions. Laymond said he looks at Matthew 15:24. Carol mentioned looking at Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Barry concentrates on these passages from the book of Romans: 1:5,17; 3:21-22,26; 8:21; 10:10.
I look at a few “pet” passages when I first pick up a Bible:
- Genesis 6:4 — This passage should be giant free, although I can be forgiving on that since the Septuagint and the Vulgate both inserted giants into this text. The translation of “Nephilim” as giant comes from Numbers 13; it’s not in this text.
- John 5:4 — This text helps me see how a version deals with discrepancies in the Greek manuscripts.
- 1 Corinthians 11:29,31 — The main verb should be identical in these two verses. Almost every version fails on this passage, but I always look. :-)
From there I read a bit in the gospels to see what kind of flow the readings have. I like to look at the prophets a bit as well, to get a feel for whether the translators sought to be literal or to give the meaning. A quick read through Philemon can also give a feel for that. (any “bowels” in your translation?)
I also like to see how the version has decided to translate YHWH, the tetragrammaton. I would love to find a version that consistently translates it as Yahweh, but I haven’t found one.
[Edit at 7:50 a.m. — I also like to see how the version deals with the Greek word “sarx,” like in Romans 8 and Galatians 5. “Flesh” is the literal translation. I don’t like what the NIV and others have done with that word.]
Those are some of my quick “field” tests when thumbing through a version. Anyone want to mention any others?
Tim, when I see all the little * and footnotes I become suspicious, I know you don’t believe any of the versions were changed to fit beliefs, but I can’t buy that.
KJV – John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
NLT – No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God,* is near to the Father’s heart; he has told us about him. Footnote:
* Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
NIV – – Jhn 1:18 – No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,*,*who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.Footnotes:
* Or the Only Begotten
* Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
ESV – No one has ever seen God; the only God,* who is at the Father’s side,* he has made him known.Footnotes:
* Greek in the bosom of the Father
* Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
These little footnotes seem to say “well, you have a choice as to what you believe” some may have that choice, I don’t .
Laymond,
If translations are done based on beliefs and not on textual evidence, that is wrong. If we choose which reading to follow based solely on our beliefs, that is also wrong.
The evidence suggests that John 1:18 was modified from the original. There is strong textual evidence that the original included the words you find distasteful. The translators of the KJV used the best they had at the time. They also did the best they could with words that they hadn’t seen before, like monogenes. They took an educated guess and translated it as “only begotten.” Now that researchers have found that word used in other literature, they realize that the meaning is more along the lines of “unique.”
Did you know that the original KJV had footnotes? And the preface, which I referred to yesterday, explained why all of that was necessary? The lack of such footnotes is a strike against any edition of any version.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, look at the footnote, * Greek in the bosom of the Father. that could not stand if you believe Jesus is equal to God. How could one God be in the bosom of another yet equal being.
lets look at other footnotes.
* Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
We know Adan was referred to as the son of God.
* Or the Only Begotten
* Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
We know the bible refers to Jesus as the only begotten son, (begotten of what? begotten of woman) Adam was a created man, Jesus was born of woman,which makes him no less God’s son.
1Cor:15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Cor:15:47: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Some use this to confirm their belief that Jesus is God it says Jesus is Lord over all else except the one who placed him as Lord.
1Cor:15:28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
I’ll say it again: “If translations are done based on beliefs and not on textual evidence, that is wrong.” We must deal with what the text says and adjust our beliefs accordingly, not vice versa.
The discussion on the divinity of Jesus is here:
http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?p=247
If you’d like to discuss that further, I’d be more than happy to do so there.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
It is a good practice to look at a new translation with some key verses in mind. The question I have is how people evaluate what is accurate and what is not. My point is, if the version you cherish doesn’t do a very good job on a verse then you may discard a newer version because it doesn’t line up with your inferior translation of that verse.
I hate to pull out the Greek and Hebrew trump card but that is what translations need to be evaluated against. All translation involves interpretation. There is no getting around it.
Matt, I had a visitor to a website I maintain at work write to me, chastising me for a Bible Search box on that site. He said that box (which uses an old, public domain Spanish version) had a terrible mistake in it. In Jeremiah 17:10, they had used the word kidneys instead of heart. He then went into a long rant about how you can’t change even the smallest detail in the Bible.
I had to gently point out that the original says “kidneys”; his version used a dynamic equivalence and changed it to say “heart.”
Too many times we do exactly what you are talking about.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, I left a comment on the post you recommended, I will try to answer to all of the reasons you quoted.
Matt, were we all lost before these newer version came out?
I’m surprised Acts 2:38 hasn’t shown up! Isn’t that the definitive coC text? That and anything mentioning Mary being a virgin. Personally, I never went to “proof texts” to decide if a version was acceptable to me or not. I never knew enough Greek and knew no Hebrew so I left that up to those I trusted who are far better educated than I.
We were discussing favorite bible verses once and I asked a friend of mine (an elder at Long Beach … you would know him), without hesitation, said, “Leviticus 18:23 has kept me out of a LOT of trouble.” I later looked it up and got a good laugh from his sense of humor.
Laymond, if you’ll read the previous post, you’ll see that the “were we all lost before” argument was used against the KJV… 400 years ago!
I agree with your assessment of sarx in the NIV. It is one of the great weaknesses of the translation (although I still like it).
Also, I appreciate what Matt said about the need to evaluate translations based on the original languages. I’m not an expert in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, so I appreciate those who are scholars in those languages. You are just about to convince me to change from the NIV to the ESV.:)
Lamond,
The newer version I use was published before I was born…so I guess that makes me okay! That is a silly questions, isn’t it? Of course Peter, Paul, James and others were fine prior to the NIV and the KJV…right? You know I am teasing you. The KJV, NKJV, RSV, and many others are really great translations and are to be highly respected for all the good they have done.
But we shouldn’t be so biased as to say nothing good can be produced that can take advantage of advances in linguistics and archaeological evidence that helps us get a better handle on the Scriptures. For instance, just 100 years ago they didn’t even understand the Koine Greek was different than classical Greek. Deissman and others thought the NT Greek was a “Holy Spirit Greek” because of its differences in Grammar and vocab. Then archaeology shed light on the text of the NT when they figured out Koine Greek was the language of the common people through digs in trash heaps and scouring through mercantile records they found from common people. So there is still much to learn. The Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s and many other great textual finds in the last 100+ years have been for our benefit.
Laymond,
We’re still waiting for your thoughts on whether or not “we were all lost” for the 15 centuries before that new-fangled 1611 Authorized Version was published.
Nick