Bible Translations

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Bible Translations

Post by steve » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:26 pm

Paidion,

Thanks for looking those up. I wish everyone would take the time to do so when references are given.
Steve, I looked up the passages: Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22 and Col 3:9 where the NIV renders "ανθρωπος" as "self", where as the AV and the NKJV render it as "man". I believe that "man" is a misleading translation. For it suggests an adult, male human being. The English word "anthropology" is derived from it. When one studies "anthropology" one's study is not limited to adult males. It is the study of "man" in an inclusive sense. But this isn't clear that this sense is meant from these passages. I think "ανθρωπος" should be translated as "person", and thus "the old person" in these passages. "Self" is closer in meaning to "person" than is "man" (as it is usually understood). Both the ESV and the NASB translated the word as "self".
But this is where one's interpretation may inadvertently mislead. Very many Christians (including the NIV translators) believe that Paul's "old man" means "myself before I was saved," and the "new man" means "myself after I got saved." This interpretation is taken for granted even by the ESV and NASB translators! No hint is given, in these translations, that this is a controversial interpretation, and no opportunity is given, in their translations, for the reader to question this assumption.

I believe that the "old man" and the "new man" are in fact referring to adult males (anthropoi). Adam is the "old man"; Christ is the "new man," and both are adult males. I am not "the new man," nor is any version of me "the new man." The "new man" is the corporate Christ (see Ephesians 2:15; Col.3:10-11), while the "old man" is the corporate body of Adam. Since the word anthropos (like the English word "man") can either mean "man" or "humanity," I think the word "man" is the only appropriate translation, and that the word "self" is misleading.

The body of Christ is Christ—"the new man" and "the new humanity." Those in Adam are "the old humanity," the body of "the old man" Adam—also called (strangely) "the body of sin" (compare Rom.6:6 with Rom.5:12, 15, 17). The "old man" and the "new man" are not two different versions of "myself" (i.e., "the old self," and "the new self"). They are two humanities—that which is in Adam and that which is in Christ, respectively.

The term "old man" appears in three places (Rom.6:6; Eph.4:22; Col.3:9). Likewise, the term "new man" appears three times (Eph.2:15; 4:24; Col.3:10). This is distinctively pauline terminology, and should be interpreted consistently in all four contexts where Paul uses it. The translations that favor "old self" and "new self" do so inconsistently. They deviate from their pattern at Ephesians 2:15, which all translate as "new man" (except for the NIV and NLT, which, with equal validity, translate "a new humanity" and "a new people," respectively) Why do they deviate here? Because "man" is clearly the correct meaning in Eph.2:15, and, by extrapolation, in the other instances, as well.
However, in Romans 7:18,25, the ESV and the NASB translate "σαρξ" as "flesh" and not as "sinful nature" as does the NIV. I do think that "flesh" in this case does refer to the sinful nature as opposed to the physical flesh. Nevertheless, since "σαρξ" means "flesh", I think it should be so translated, and let people decide for themselves its application.
I agree with this entire paragraph. I agree that Paul means "sinful nature" here, but it is disputable, and translators should not conceal that fact. "Flesh" (Gr. sarx) has numerous possible uses in the New Testament, and the paraphrase does not allow the reader to know that one might reach a different conclusion as to its use here (which one would be entitled to do, in my opinion).

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Bible Translations

Post by mattrose » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:01 pm

I was thinking about this thread again today for some reason.

I want to be a bit clearer about my thoughts on Peterson's The Message Bible.

In one sense, I don't think it's a good translation of the Bible. Indeed, it could well be argued that it takes far too many liberties to even be called a translation.

In another sense, though, it is a translation. Peterson is said to have translated from the Greek to write it. It's just a very 'dynamic' (rather than word for word) translation. A dynamic translation takes the THOUGHT of the original text and translates it into how the translator would express that thought. Peterson, being a pretty poetic person, tends to have a flowery way of thinking.

In practice, his poetic language becomes yet another stage through which the text evolves. It gets translated not only into a different language, but then also through a specific genre of that language (poetry). This increases the likelyhood that the most accurate meaning of the text gets lost in translation. But at the same time it creates the possibility, however rare, that the most accurate meaning is maintained and communicated in a more effective way than previous translations have been able to accomplish.

My point was not that The Message Bible should be used as anyone's Bible, but that it is not a bad text to consult when preparing a Bible study or doing personal devotions (especially when one gets stuck on the meaning of a given passage). There have been times (less than 10, but more than 2) when it has helped me get un-stuck when trying to interpret a difficult verse.

As for The New Living and the New International... I'll still defend them whole-heartedly. I think dynamic translating is superior to word-for-word translating for Bible reading, study, preaching, and teaching. I think it is preferable for a teacher to use a dynamic translation and then simply slow down and discuss difficult words and phrases (consulting word for word translations and original Hebrew and Greek words). I think some word for word translations (like, for instance, the NASB) are actually poor translations due to the choppiness one often encounters when reading it. I don't find the NKJV nearly as choppy as the NASB, though.
Last edited by mattrose on Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Bible Translations

Post by mattrose » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:03 pm

By the way, the ideal Bible FOR ME would be one that replaces all English with Greek and Hebrew words that I've actually studied! It'd still be mostly english, but it'd let me make interpretive decisions for myself.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Bible Translations

Post by dwilkins » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:56 pm

Matt,

Your comment reminded me of this article,

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leitha ... ld-between

My take away is that regardless of whether you get the right word translated there is a lot more going on in most passages. Bible publishers who attempt to deal with puns or other figures of speech are doing us a favor (though the analysis probably belong in footnotes most of the time).

Doug

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Bible Translations

Post by Singalphile » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:26 pm

I've thought that it would be interesting if the translators tried to match the quality of the original author. They say that Acts and Luke and Hebrews are well written, whereas Paul's epistles aren't quite so good, and Revelation uses some bad or confused Greek for some reason. I'd like to see the English versions try to capture that, grammatical mistakes and all.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Bible Translations

Post by Paidion » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:18 pm

In another sense, though, [The Message Bible] is a translation. Peterson is said to have translated from the Greek to write it. It's just a very 'dynamic' (rather than word for word) translation. A dynamic translation takes the THOUGHT of the original text and translates it into how the translator would express that thought.
That would be the best of translations if the translator should actually KNOW the thought of the writer of the original text. But how can he know it? Don't the writers of paraphrases go into their work with the prejudices of their upbringing and particular areas of study to which they applied themelves? Indeed those who attempt to translate a Biblical language as literally as possible must do this also (but to a lesser extent).

By the way, there's no such animal as a "word for word translation," the reason being that such a translation would not make much sense in English. Joshua Dickey has made an "inter-word" translation of the Septuagint. I have copied below Dickey's English word equivalents to each Greek word for the 23rd Psalm:

Psalm the David
1. The Lord he tends me and shall not me he will fail.
2. A place of tender shoots there me he will encamp by water rest.
3. The soul my turned guide me for the paths righteousness for the name his.
4. If for and shall I go in the midst of the shadow of death I will not you and the is a staff you they me they comforted.
5. You prepared before my a table of before of the afflicting me you anointed in olive oil the head my and the cup you is intoxicating as most excellent.
6. And the mercy you he will pursue me all the day the of life and the dwelling me in house of the Lord a duration.

Here is an English translation by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, of the same Psalm from the Septuagint:

Psalm of David
1. The Lord tends me as a shepherd, and I shall want nothing.
2. In a place of green grass, there he has made me dwell: he has nourished me by the watter of rest.
3. He has restored my soul: he has guided me into the paths of righteousness, for his names' sake.
4. Yea, even if I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will not be afraid of evils: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, these have comforted me.
5. Thou hast prepared a table before me in the presence of them that afflict me: thou has thoroughly anointed my head with oil; and thy cup cheers me like the best wine.
6. Thy mercy also shall follow me all the days of my life: and my dwelling shall be in the house of the Lord for a very long time.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Bible Translations

Post by darinhouston » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:46 am

I agree with all of you -- personally, I like the NET because of its comprehensive translation notes (sometimes a bit of a commentary, but usually just highlighting issues of translation or controversy surrounding a translation or interpretation).

I wish there was a text that used visual cues to demonstrate confidence in historicity, canonicity, attribution of quotations, confidence in translations, and textual-critical issues as well as denoting a passage as having parallel treatment in other passages, and a hyperlink to the most discrete snippet of a Steve Gregg audio commentary. ;)

I sometimes refer to The Message or The Amplified just to enlarge my thoughts or devotions about a passage -- I must always measure it against a word for word just to highlight issues or ensure I'm not being misled, but like Matt also refer to the thought-for-thought translations to see if something might be "lost in translation."

I think slavish word for word can even be more dangerous than thought for thought, but unfortunately, I trust people to translate words better than I trust them to be balanced in their thoughts. If you want to see how misleading "word-for-word" can be, take an english sentence (any one will do) and put it in a machine translator (or have a native speaker in another language do it for you) and then put the translated sentence back in (or provide to a different native speaker) and have it back-translated back to english and see how convuluted it has becomes -- now do that with an ancient text or even one from a previous generation with somewhat stilted syntax (to our ears)....

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”