Bibles that are deliberately bad?

[Revmitchell]

Or my "narrow" view has been honed and sharpened over the years and I have strong beliefs that a Bible should not weaken the doctrine of the virgin birth. That is a perspective I do not want to lose.

That is right because otherwise it would be completely heretical.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Thanks to all who gave advice and showed thought process on this thread. I'm certain that we must be VERY CAREFUL about what we hand our children by way of Scripture.

I can see that there is consensus in here about the translation offered up by the JW's. And we're maybe 50/50 on the NET Bible.

Thanks again for all the input. The award for Smartest Poster goes to JoJ....even though he studies wing chun kung-fu.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The OP was: "Is there a Bible you would NOT purchase for your kids"?

If you want to throw it away, be my guest. I threw my wife's copy away years ago. When was the last time you read this translation?

Practically never.....its just on my desk collecting dust. But dont like to throw out bibles.

 

[robycop3]

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

Ask any rabbi what an "almah" is. It's a virtuous young woman whose virginity is a gimme if she's single.

 

[robycop3]

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)

Every English version uses some paraphrasing to "make sense" in English in some passages. What mi don't care for are versions that use more paraphrasing than literalness, as there's a lotta translators' opinions injected into the text.

 

[robycop3]

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.

While a young wife can also be an almah, the almah's virginity is a gimme if she's single. thus, for just any ole almah to have a son isn't a sign, but for a n UNMARRIED one to have a son back in those days was surely a sign. There was a lot more focus on virginity among those ancient jews.

 

[robycop3]

Also, I wouldn't recommend ANY Bible version that's made specifically for a given denomination, even if that denom is legitimate.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

satanic Bible, and Dakes study bible, worst of the Charasmatic theology!

Also ANY Wof studt edition, hagin/copeland etc!

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks to all who gave advice and showed thought process on this thread. I'm certain that we must be VERY CAREFUL about what we hand our children by way of Scripture.

I can see that there is consensus in here about the translation offered up by the JW's. And we're maybe 50/50 on the NET Bible.

Thanks again for all the input. The award for Smartest Poster goes to JoJ....even though he studies wing chun kung-fu.

HA! Takes brains to train in wing chun, to get all them little block-type thingies right.

But thanks for the award.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

HA! Takes brains to train in wing chun, to get all them little block-type thingies right.

But thanks for the award.

There IS no logic; there is only the chun.

 

[John of Japan]

There IS no logic; there is only the chun.

There is no try. One must become the chun. :saint:

 

[Van]

I suppose a bible could be deliberately bad, the skeptics bible springs to mind. However, many of the others have translators that are trying to be helpful, like those helpful copiests who introduced corruptions to the text, whether by addition or omission.

So, the goal would be to find the translation that (1) you can understand, i.e. not so outdated you miss the message, and (2) and to the least degree alters the translation to mesh with the translators understanding of doctrine.

For example, if you do not believe in the trinity doctrine, you might translate the first verses of John as the NWT does. Thus a translation to avoid.

Another bias used by some translators is to stick with the traditional translation. Thus John 3:16 would read "begotten" rather than "one of a kind." Another example would be translating YHWH as "LORD" rather than YHWH or Yahweh.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose a bible could be deliberately bad, the skeptics bible springs to mind. However, many of the others have translators that are trying to be helpful, like those helpful copiests who introduced corruptions to the text, whether by addition or omission.

So, the goal would be to find the translation that (1) you can understand, i.e. not so outdated you miss the message, and (2) and to the least degree alters the translation to mesh with the translators understanding of doctrine.

For example, if you do not believe in the trinity doctrine, you might translate the first verses of John as the NWT does. Thus a translation to avoid.

Another bias used by some translators is to stick with the traditional translation. Thus John 3:16 would read "begotten" rather than "one of a kind." Another example would be translating YHWH as "LORD" rather than YHWH or Yahweh.

Think the NWT/Mormon/Queer james bible are best examples for the OP!

 

[Van]

I was leaving the low hanging fruit for my grand-kids. The HCSB does not in many cases follow the traditional translation model. But rather than being seen as a plus, many complain of its "quirky" translations.

 

[Van]

And what about the translations that seemingly mistranslate verse after verse to create the opportunity to pour doctrine into the text. The NLT, NIV and ESV spring to mind.

 

[ElainaMor]

And what about the translations that seemingly mistranslate verse after verse to create the opportunity to pour doctrine into the text. The NLT, NIV and ESV spring to mind.

Can you give examples of mistranslated verses from those translations? I'm curious.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was leaving the low hanging fruit for my grand-kids. The HCSB does not in many cases follow the traditional translation model. But rather than being seen as a plus, many complain of its "quirky" translations.

actual, have read many scholars who seem to deem it as being among the best MV, reading like Niv, but more accurate at times...

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you give examples of mistranslated verses from those translations? I'm curious.

Nlt was not meant to be a priamry version, but a version to be able to be read with understanding, Niv mediating version, not bad, but would prefer a more formal version for serious studies! esv very good also!

 

[Van]

Can you give examples of mistranslated verses from those translations? I'm curious.

Hi Elaina, welcome to biblical discussion.

You can Google "mistranslation verses in ESV or NIV, or NLT and find many articles purporting to document mistranslations.

So I will simply provide three examples, one from each to illustrate a far larger difficulty.

ESV, Revelation 13:8, "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." Here we see the Greek word "apo" which means out of, or from, or since or after, mistranslated to read before to support the doctrine of individual election before creation.

NIV, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, "3 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth." Here we see the Greek word "soteria" which is a Greek noun in the accusative case, making it the direct object of the verb chose. However, the NIV violates the grammar and renders it as a verb (to be saved) so that "through belief in the truth" applies to "saved" rather than "chose." This mistranslation supports the doctrine of unconditional election by obscuring the fact the verse says we were chosen through faith, thus a conditional election.

NLT, James 2:5, "Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him?" Here the words "to be" are added to the text without italics or other demarcation to indicate they are translator additions. Many modern translations follow this error (i.e. insert to be) but others do not. Again the insertion obscures that God chose individuals who were rich in faith, and supports the doctrine they were chosen to become rich in faith.
Again, the Greek grammar indicates "rich in faith" further describes and specifies the ones (poor to the world) chosen.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Elaina, welcome to biblical discussion.

You can Google "mistranslation verses in ESV or NIV, or NLT and find many articles purporting to document mistranslations.

So I will simply provide three examples, one from each to illustrate a far larger difficulty.

ESV, Revelation 13:8, "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." Here we see the Greek word "apo" which means out of, or from, or since or after, mistranslated to read before to support the doctrine of individual election before creation.

NIV, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, "3 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth." Here we see the Greek word "soteria" which is a Greek noun in the accusative case, making it the direct object of the verb chose. However, the NIV violates the grammar and renders it as a verb (to be saved) so that "through belief in the truth" applies to "saved" rather than "chose." This mistranslation supports the doctrine of unconditional election by obscuring the fact the verse says we were chosen through faith, thus a conditional election.

NLT, James 2:5, "Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him?" Here the words "to be" are added to the text without italics or other demarcation to indicate they are translator additions. Many modern translations follow this error (i.e. insert to be) but others do not. Again the insertion obscures that God chose individuals who were rich in faith, and supports the doctrine they were chosen to become rich in faith.
Again, the Greek grammar indicates "rich in faith" further describes and specifies the ones (poor to the world) chosen.

You do realise that many times what you call "mistranslations" are based upon their being more than one view to render the word/term, and their choices are based upon what they see as best way to render, based upon avaiable information, correct?

NOT intention mistranslations, just what they see as proably the corrct eway to render it!