Rook and the bible translations
Offline Rook,
I've read many of your posts and seen several of your videos and I noticed that typically you refer off the Revised Standard Version (RSV) but not the more popular New International Version (NIV) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the latter considered the most accurate and as close to word-for-word translation available.
What I wanna know is why did you go with what is considered a far more liberal translation? Outside of using a 100% Greek (which isn't practical since most who post here don't know Greek), I would have figured you would have gone with the NASB which has less controversy and, more importantly, follows contextual patterns.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
- Login to post comments
The New International Version is an attempt to smooth out contradictions found in earlier versions such as KJV. The Duetercanonical books were not included and it is more or less a protestant translation. Some of the translations were changed around in certain versions to make the message more "Positive" so that modern Christians wouldn't see the contradictions or notice the things found in the original texts. A good example of this is the following
Luke 14:25-26 says in the NRSV and the Greek Translation
" Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to them, "Whoever comes to me and does not HATE father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters,yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple".
Christians Apologists have attempted to lessen the negative connotations by changing around the wording in further english translations.
Ex. Luke 14:25-26 From the NLT(New Living Translation) This is also done in the Good News Bible also
Great crowds were following Jesus. He turned around and said to them, "If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple
Do you notice the difference? Christian apologists will tell you that they did this because the verse is similar to Matthew 10:37 but any scholar will tell you that, One cannot assume that lukes readers had read Matthew at the time Luke was written.
I am sure that Rook and others want to stay as literal as possible because there are too many watered down versions these days.
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
The NIV is by no means an 100% accurate translation. Neither is the KJV. Any biblical scholar will tell you as much. The NIV is a derivative of the KJV in more "readable" English just so you don't have to deal with understanding the "thou" and other old English words.
The reason I question the RSV however are other areas of question that add to the "did it really mean that" discussion, especially in light of full context. We know words can have more than one meaning, and the decision as to which meaning will be used is just as important as just the definition of what the word is. Translations like NLT or any amplified bible version (such as the Good News I think it's called) do so for easy reading or, as you said, lessen the negatives. The RSV has issues of maintaining the same meaning given the context. With it being controversial in that it may not have the most contextually accurate, it begs the question why use it?
So why not use NASB? I'm really curious.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
The RSV is actually a much better translation then the NASB. This is why scholarly journals use it over the NASB, like the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). In fact the SBL even has a Study Bible (put out by Harper Collins) which is available in the RSV. I still recommend the NASB, do not get me wrong. I would just recommend and still prefer to use the RSV (which is still very literal. I've done my own comparisons with the NA27 Greek and Greek-English Interlinears to the RSV, and still find it very accurate). Additionally, the RSV includes the Apocrypha, where many NASB's do not (due to publishers), and I enjoy having those available.
I hope that answers your questions.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Yes and no.
Don't get me wrong, I by no means am saying that the RSV is a bad translation, but it is questionable on a few levels. For example, how would you address the Isaiah 7 controversy? What about the John 3:16 one?
Interesting you mention the Apocrypha, by which I assume you mean the books such as Maccabees and Wisdom. I'm sure you are aware of why they are not in "Protestant" bibles, right?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
So we both agree...I'm not seeing the disagreement. Why did you start this thread?
Ask a few questions...get a few answers. That's it.
Not every thread or comment has to be for an argument ya know.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
No, of course not. But generally people with questions for me ask them in PM's. That is why they are there. =)
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I personally use the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NASB.
I don't particularly like the ESV in comparison to the others but they have an awesome website. They have audio recordings available of someone reading the verses so I can still absorb most of the information while I'm doing other things, like cleaning my room, working on my computer, and so on. If I'm not studying but merely refreshing my memory, ESV is my favorite for doing so.
I own an NRSV Study Bible published by Oxford. The general accuracy of the translation, the introductory material provided for each book, the extensive study and translation notes, the maps and kings lists, the references to parallel verses, and many of the apocryphal (or deuterocanonical) texts with references throughout the other texts when it pertains to the apocrypha make it an excellent resource. The only major thing you have to be careful about is the gender inclusive renderings. The RSV doesn't have the gender inclusive renderings, hence the reason I like to have it around.
The NASB is a very accurate translation but they sometimes sacrifice readability to show fairly irrelevant details about the sentence structure of the text they translated. The sentence structure is interesting sometimes but if I wanted to know about it I would turn to the text itself, rather than a translation of it. Because the NASB and (N)RSV are both fairly accurate translations they make great companions for cross-referencing because any inconsistencies between them are sure to produce some interesting material to research. I wish the NASB included more of the apocrypha though, which is one of my favorite parts of the NRSV Study Bible I own.
Whenever I am quoting verses for use online where the technical details of the translation aren't too important I generally use the ESV because their translation is highly readable and it's easy to find verses on their website. When the technical details are more important I generally use the NRSV (or RSV if gender inclusiveness might be an issue) because it's a highly accurate translation and I like to include the footnotes to which I have access, which are awesome.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!