Bibles that are deliberately bad?

[Jkdbuck76]

I'm walking on thin ice here, but I'm going to ask ppl to very carefully consider what they say, so as to follow strictly the guidelines of this forum.

Having said that, would you say that there are translations and even study bibles that you would NOT let your kids purchase?

This must NOT degenerate into a "only X version is the real Bible and all others are evil thread."

A few that come to mind: the Queen James Bible, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Your thoughts?

 

[annsni]

New World Translation is another.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Probably the worst offender is the Jehovah Witnesses translation of the Bible, "The New World Bible". Not only are some verses deliberately mistranslated to support their theology there are verses deliberately left out of the translation.

 

[ktn4eg]

The Jehovah Witnesses (i.e., the Watchtower Society) publish what's called the New World Translation.

While it's based on some of the same manuscripts as the KJV, it deliberately deceives the reader by adding to (or taking away from) the originals so as to deceive the reader in that it (among other things) out rightly DENIES the fact that Jesus Christ has a Divine Nature!

I caution everyone to avoid this translation "like the devil"! (Who is, in fact, the motivating "force" behind this so-called "translation"! :tear

I contend that the warnings that the Holy Spirit led the Apostle John to write in Revelation 22:18-19 most definitely apply to those behind the New World "Translation"!!

 

[InTheLight]

The Message. Good News for Modern Man. Any version that has "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 instead of virgin.

 

[ktn4eg]

The Message. Good News for Modern Man. Any version that has "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 instead of virgin.

This would also include the Revised Standard Version (RSV) that first appeared about 70 or so years ago, and is copyrighted (c) by a division of the ultra-liberal National Council of Churches (NCC).

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) should not be confused with either the English [i.e., "British"] Standard Version (ESV) that first appeared in the 1880's. Nor should the RSV be confused with the American Standard Version (ASV) that came out in 1900.

While the people behind the RSV have made claims to the effect that the RSV is a "revision" of both the ESV and the ASV, most reputable, conservative Biblical textual scholars would dispute such claims.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

I've seen Dr. Ruckman's study bible and The Common Man's Study bible mentioned in the same breath, so I have avoided both.

Someone told me to steer clear of Dake's bible since he was NOT a trinitarian.

 

[annsni]

This would also include the Revised Standard Version (RSV) that first appeared about 70 or so years ago, and is copyrighted (c) by a division of the ultra-liberal National Council of Churches (NCC).

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) should not be confused with either the English [i.e., "British"] Standard Version (ESV) that first appeared in the 1880's. Nor should the RSV be confused with the American Standard Version (ASV) that came out in 1900.

While the people behind the RSV have made claims to the effect that the RSV is a "revision" of both the ESV and the ASV, most reputable, conservative Biblical textual scholars would dispute such claims.

How can the RSV be a revision of the ESV when it came first?

 

[rsr]

He means the English Revised Version.

The ESV is an update of the RSV.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Thanks. I'm sure that there certainly ARE some false bibles out there. I mean Satan's first attack against humanity was to twist God's Words.

 

[padredurand]

Jefferson Bible. Give a deist a razor blade and some glue..... :wavey:

 

[go2church]

Young woman is also accurate. The distinctive Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is betûlâ, whereas ‘almâ means a ‘young woman’ who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. Cyrus H. Gordon, “Almah in Isaiah 7:14,” JBR 21, no. 2 (April, 1953): 106

What usually carries the weight for alma being understood as virgin is the Septuigent translation which collectively chose the Greek word parthenos which means virgin. It was in effect an interpretive choice based on their vast experience as scholars. Matthew followed this line of usage as would have been expected but he also wanted to highlight the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus.

It seems to me to be a prophetic word for the time and also for the time of Jesus. Both translations are reasonable and both require further explanation. Of course in my opinion.

 

[John of Japan]

Young woman is also accurate. The distinctive Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is betûlâ, whereas ‘almâ means a ‘young woman’ who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. Cyrus H. Gordon, “Almah in Isaiah 7:14,” JBR 21, no. 2 (April, 1953): 106

I'm editing this in to mention that it is not a problem for a language to have more than one word meaning strictly "virgin" but having different nuances. Japanese actually has several words for virgin, as you can see here: http://jisho.org/words?jap=&eng=virgin&dict=edict

What usually carries the weight for alma being understood as virgin is the Septuigent translation which collectively chose the Greek word parthenos which means virgin. It was in effect an interpretive choice based on their vast experience as scholars. Matthew followed this line of usage as would have been expected but he also wanted to highlight the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus.

It seems to me to be a prophetic word for the time and also for the time of Jesus. Both translations are reasonable and both require further explanation. Of course in my opinion.

There is not a single usage of almah in the Hebrew OT where a meaning of "young woman" can be proven from the context, but in every single case "virgin" is a reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, in the NT in Matt. 1:23 the divinely inspired author translates Isaiah's almah with the Greek parthenos (as you yourself admit). That word is without doubt the word in Greek for "virgin," meaning that 1st century Jews (and God who inspired Matthew) took the Hebrew almah to mean "virgin." Case closed. The liberal translators were wrong.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The Jehovah Witnesses (i.e., the Watchtower Society) publish what's called the New World Translation.

While it's based on some of the same manuscripts as the KJV, it deliberately deceives the reader by adding to (or taking away from) the originals so as to deceive the reader in that it (among other things) out rightly DENIES the fact that Jesus Christ has a Divine Nature!

I caution everyone to avoid this translation "like the devil"! (Who is, in fact, the motivating "force" behind this so-called "translation"! :tear

I contend that the warnings that the Holy Spirit led the Apostle John to write in Revelation 22:18-19 most definitely apply to those behind the New World "Translation"!!

The New World Translation is translated from the Wescott and Hort text.
COMPLETELY different from the manuscripts the KJV is translated from.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Young woman is also accurate. The distinctive Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is betûlâ, whereas ‘almâ means a ‘young woman’ who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. Cyrus H. Gordon, “Almah in Isaiah 7:14,” JBR 21, no. 2 (April, 1953): 106

What usually carries the weight for alma being understood as virgin is the Septuigent translation which collectively chose the Greek word parthenos which means virgin. It was in effect an interpretive choice based on their vast experience as scholars. Matthew followed this line of usage as would have been expected but he also wanted to highlight the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus.

It seems to me to be a prophetic word for the time and also for the time of Jesus. Both translations are reasonable and both require further explanation. Of course in my opinion.

And a young woman having a child is a sign how exactly? that happens all the time...now a virgin on the other hand...

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

There is not a single usage of almah in the Hebrew OT where a meaning of "young woman" can be proven from the context, but in every single case "virgin" is a reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, in the NT in Matt. 1:23 the divinely inspired author translates Isaiah's almah with the Greek parthenos (as you yourself admit). That word is without doubt the word in Greek for "virgin," meaning that 1st century Jews (and God who inspired Matthew) took the Hebrew almah to mean "virgin." Case closed. The liberal translators were wrong.

This is the truth!

 

[annsni]

The New World Translation is translated from the Wescott and Hort text.
COMPLETELY different from the manuscripts the KJV is translated from.

So? They didn't even follow the W&H where they stray from other orthodox translations.

Just remember that the JW's also accept the KJV as a valid Scripture.

 

[robycop3]

The New World "Translation" is the old RV after re-wording by Freddie Franz & his buddy George Gangas in 1950.

And, there's the "Clear Word" bible of the SDAs, and the Joseph Smith KJV of the Mor(m)ons.

I think anyone with a licka sense would avoid bibles with such names as "Queen James" and "Cotton Patch", but names like 'Clear Word' and New World Translation' are deceptive.

Also, I don't care much for "The Message" nor the old "Living Bible", with its cussing. But then I don't care much for any paraphrased version, preferring LITERAL ones.

 

[Rippon]

I don't care much for any paraphrased version, preferring LITERAL ones.

Ah,more misunderstanding about paraphrasing.

From the wonderful little book "How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth" by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss,some snippetts follow.

"A comment should be made here about the word 'paraphrase,' since it is one of the most misunderstood and misused words with reference to Bible translation. The term is often used in a derogatory sense of a translation that is highly idiomatic and so (by implication) misses the meaning of the original. People will say, 'Isn't that just a paraphrase?' and mean 'That is not a real translation --it's too free.' The problem with this definition is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that an accurate translation is necessarily a literal one,and thus an idiomatic one is inaccurate." (pages 31,32)

"...An accurate translation is one that reproduces the meaning of the text, regardless of whether it follows the form. This realization makes the popular definition of 'paraphrase' subjective and unhelpful. It would be better to use the term in a neutral sense, meaning 'to say the same thing in different words, usually for the sake of clarification or simplification.' By this definition all translations paraphrase to one degree or another,since all change Hebrew and Greek words into English ones to make the text understandable. The important question then becomes not whether the text praphrases, but whether it gets the meaning right."

"We should also note that linguists sometimes use 'paraphase' in a third sense, contrasting it with 'translation.' While 'translation' is transferring a message from one language to another,paraphrase is rewording a message in the same language." (p.32)

 

[go2church]

I'm editing this in to mention that it is not a problem for a language to have more than one word meaning strictly "virgin" but having different nuances. Japanese actually has several words for virgin, as you can see here: http://jisho.org/words?jap=&eng=virgin&dict=edict



There is not a single usage of almah in the Hebrew OT where a meaning of "young woman" can be proven from the context, but in every single case "virgin" is a reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, in the NT in Matt. 1:23 the divinely inspired author translates Isaiah's almah with the Greek parthenos (as you yourself admit). That word is without doubt the word in Greek for "virgin," meaning that 1st century Jews (and God who inspired Matthew) took the Hebrew almah to mean "virgin." Case closed. The liberal translators were wrong.

the word "almah" does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (”maiden“); Exodus 2:8 (”girl“); Psalm 68:25 (”maidens“); Proverbs 30:19 (”maiden“); Song of Songs 1:3 (”maidens“); 6:8 (”virgins“)." 1. Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press Publications, 1985.

I was hoping you would post, John. I think I would push back on the phrasing "not a single usage" some, though I think I understand what you're saying.

I've come to understand both as accurate, both requiring further explanation. If young woman is used you explain how Matthew got to virgin from alma. If virgin is used you explain the interpretive choice to use parthenos.

Even if using young woman, I don't believe you have grounds for denying what I believe is clearly a deliberate choice on the part of Matthew to draw attention to the divine birth in a divine manner.