Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Christians please?

do any of you feel that with so many translations of the bible over the years , so much confusion over old laws compared to divine writing, differences in interpretations etc

that it is time for biblical scholars to rewrite things , modernise it and simplify the message ?

there just seems to be so much confusion even within the Christian communities as to what the bible says and means

as I feel it would help not only Christianity to all be reading from the same book

but for non Christians to understand Christianity better

please understand, this is not intended as a put down

I am genuinly interested in your thoughts on this

Update:

actually I feel it needs to be brought back to basics before the translations

a de translation if you like

but with modern text

just my thoughts on it

Update 2:

ahh Steven read my mind there lol

Update 3:

avon needing a hug there ?

(((((())))))

46 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Are you asking if they should write yet ANOTHER translation? Jews read their scripture in its ORIGINAL language, so to avoid mistranslation issues. Why don't Christians just do the same, if God's word is so important?

  • 1 decade ago

    It would be simpler to go back to the earliest available writings, of which there are thousands of copies.

    Contrary to common belief, the Bible has not changed that much throughout the years. Confusion has arisen because some translators have coloured their copies with man-made philosophies and pagan teachings. There are already translations in existence that have done away with such things.

    I believe that the Bible is inspired of God. Atheists make the claim that the Bible is not inspired, so if a new uninspired, modernised translation of the Bible was written, I doubt this would help non-Christians understand our beliefs better. In fact, I think it would help them re-inforce the 'Bible was written by men' arguement - which is a half truth.

    I also doubt that all Christians would be happy to go along with modernising the Bible. So you would have some reading the new translation and some reading their trusted translation, which would lead to a 'them-and-us' scenario and, undoubtedly, even more confusion.

    The fact is, Christianity already reads from the same book, it's just that some are not taught it effectively. Along with this, atheists are, understandably, put off the Bible because most, (not all) mainstream religions have mis-represented God through wars and hypocrisy.

    I would simply encourage a fresh look at the Bible.

  • 1 decade ago

    Question: "Why are there so many Bible translations / versions, and which is the best?"

    Answer: The fact that there are so many Bible versions is both a blessing and a problem. It is a blessing in that the Word of God is available to anyone who needs it in an easy-to-understand, accurate translation. It is a problem in that the different versions can create controversy and problems in Bible studies, teaching situations, etc. The differences between the translations can also be a subject of great division within the church body.

    It is probably wise to have access to at least 2 or 3 of the major translations (KJV (King James Version), NIV (New International Version), NAS (New American Standard), NKJV (New King James Version), NLT (New Living Translation), for comparison's sake. If a verse or passage in one translation is a little confusing, it can be helpful to compare it side-by-side with another version. It is difficult to say which translation is the "best." "Best" would be determined by a combination of the translation method personally considered best and your interpretation of the textual data underlying your translation. For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought). Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods. Paraphrases such as The Message or The Living Bible can be used to gain a different perspective on the meaning of a verse, but they should not be used as a primary Bible translation.

    There are many more Bible versions out there. It is wise to have a personal method for determining whether a particular Bible translation is accurate. A good technique is to have a set of Scripture verses you know well, and look those verses up in a translation you are unsure of. A good idea is to look at some of the most common verses which speak of the deity of Christ (John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 10:30; Titus 2:13) to make sure a Bible version is true to the Word of God. We can be confident that God's Word is truth, and that it will accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12).

    With love through Christ Jesus,

    Dusty

  • Guvo
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Well, it's a good idea in principle, Pangel, but I don't think it would work. Reason being that some Christians swear by the Old King James version and will use nothing else. Others swear by the New International Version and will only use that. They would likely see a new de-translation as being an attack on their own stronghold and would view it as a liberalization of the Bible. They'd say "some people who claim to be Christians but are really wolves in sheeps clothing are trying to preach a different gospel than what we have been taught. They are not Christians." They'd also say "these people are trying to widen the narrow way."

    But why would they do this? I think you know why, as Neale Donald Walsch says in Communion With God (I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but he did have some stuff right on) - because they want to use religion as an exclusionary thing, because they are in...and everyone else is out. I don't remember the exact wording he used, but that's the jist of it. I think it was the Illusion of Superiority.

    I would be interested in seeing the Bible in this manner though, to see how it differs from the current versions. Although I still think there would be some hard teachings for many people to accept. Not everything in the Bible could be de-translated to an "easy-to-swallow" pill without translating it with one's own interpretations.

    Blessings in the Light of Christ!

    ~Embracing my Pangelism

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The King James version, of 1611, was based on the Bishop bible of 1568, and became the basis of the English Revised Version appearing in 1881, the New Testament, and 1885 for the Old Testament. this was Americanized in 1901, and was the American Standard Version. in 1959 using new discoveries of Greek and Hebrew text the new American Standard Version, was introduced. further update using Hebrew and Greek scholars, were in the 1071 New American standard bible.

    and it basic purpose was the make a translation in a fluent and readable style according to current English usage.

    while the New International Version was taken from the original Greek, and Hebrew text.

    I have done a lot of study from all of these plus the Phillip bible. the Open bible and the Amplified Bible,

    my personal choice is the New American Standard, even though I could find very little difference between it and the NIV.

    and with these new and easier to read, and understand versions, there are still a majority of Christians that think the only true version of the bible is still the King James.

    I have heard many say,

    "if it was good enough for Peter and Paul it's good enough for Me"

    Source(s): jcms
  • 1 decade ago

    I find that that is what scholars have tried to do, but they haven't done the necessary ground work of decipherment and Hebrew word studies. In Hebrew the Masoretic vowel system fixed grammar and interpretation to a large extent. So for example there are cases where zro (zayin rosh ayin) is translated "seed" and cases where it is translated mistakenly as "arm" (yd means "arm", kp means "hand"). So for example in Isaiah it reads (I am paraphrasing from memory) it talks about sending God's arm into the world when it should say sending God's seed into the world, on the other hand when it says (paraphrasing) a virgin shall give birth, it should say a handmaid shall give birth (talking about the messiah).

    Both of those have theological consequences, but most translation problems do not involve theological issues. The original grammar is not entirely translated in the original sense. And many other nouns and verbs are translated incorrectly.

    In spite of the volumes of linguistic study on Hebrew, the Masoretic vocalization is in fact not questioned, so serious work in decipherment is not done. That is my field, so I think that is why I have to work in jobs outside of my field, until a university is found that will grand PhDs to dissidents, and even then what is the use because no University would risk hiring a dissident with a questionable PhD. There goes my teaching career.

    My translations are few, I translated Ruth and Jonah and Obediah. And I translate linguistically, rather than dynamically. And my translations are vast improvements, but there is yet so much research needed to be done to perfect the works.

    We have to distinguish between the jobs of translation and decipherment. The work in decipherment is relatively unknown; it is assumed that the translators do it.

    I have written many unpublished articles; if there was someway that my field could be recognized then I could teach the craft of decipherment. But if I am lecturing and there are 10 people in the audience and I say the Masoretic vocalization is to be thrown out as a first assumption (to make a long story short) then I will be lucky if I have one remaining member in the audience.

    This deficit, due to the process of historical linguistic change, fits in with the devine plan, there must remain secrets, so that each of the prophets have different pieces of the puzzle. God reveals his secrets to his servants the prophets, scripture says. But he does not reveal all secrets to all prophets.

    Many Pastors claim to do word studies using the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. I am an expert in word studies, and I can say the vast majority of them don't do proper and adequate word studies, they just take the short cuts. I should be lecturing at a Major Christian Convention or the like.

    There is a lot of work to be done.

    Any further questions or interest in historical linguistics see

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicallinguistic...

    Dave

    Source(s): Self proclaimed expert in Ancient Hebrew Morphological Decipherment
  • 1 decade ago

    Actually this has already been done. There are are many English translations in new modern English. The one I use is The New World Translation Of the Holy Scriptures which was translated from the oldest available manuscripts. However, there is much prejudice against this translation since it is the principal one used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Some erroneously believe that the King James Bible is the only English translation that has any validity and so refuse to use anything else, despite it's archaic language and proven mistranslations of certain verses.

    All of this notwithstanding, one can still learn the overall message of the Bible and begin to learn finer details from any translation. Beyond that, a comparison of various translations, along with Bible aids such as a Strong's concordance and dictionary of Bible words and other aids can be very helpful.

  • The bible was originally written in Hebrew, then the new testament scholors spoke in Aramaic. The written language of the day was Greek, influenced by Romans. Now isn't that confusing enough?

    No need for more bibles there are bibles enough. There need to be more Faith and Prayer before studying the bible. Today everybody in Ministry,( ie, TV Evangelistic or so called biblical scholars) want to rewrite their version of the bible to modernize them with their own commentaries. But they won't simplify the message, just get own two cents in there.

    A good modern english version is the Good News Translation. Modern English, written in 1976. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And the Contemporary English Version. Modern English, 1995. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    There have been many more good mulitple versions side by side bibles of more than one translations on the pages. One of the oldest bible is Wyclif's Bible. Middle English, c. 1380. From the Vulgate. Tyndale Bible. Early Modern English, 1526. From either the Vulgate or from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. Great Bible. Early Modern English, 1539. From the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible. Complete Moffatt Bible. Modern English, 1935. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    "Because different groups of Jews and Christians differ on the true content of the Bible, the "incomplete translations" section includes only translations seen by their translators as incomplete, such as Christian translations of the New Testament alone. Translations such as Jewish versions of the Tanakh are included in the "complete" category, even though Christians traditionally have considered the Bible to consist properly of more than just the Tanakh." by Wikipedia

    Now there is God's New Covenant bible: A New Testament Modern English Translation: From the original Greek.

    The International Standard Version: New Testament, with Old Testament in translation. Modern English. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is good too.

    There are many so called "Inspired Version of the Bible,"

    from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

    There is the "Everlasting Gospel": New Testament. Modern English. From the original Greek?

    The New Authorized Version: New Testament and parts of the Old Testament. Modern English, 1998. Revision of the King James Version. And of course my favorite "The New International Life application Bible." Just to to any Christian, Jewish or catholic book store and "Go Fish:"

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No.

    And its obvious that you don't understand the process of making a translation of the Holy Scriptures.

    Every time a new translation is done, they start from the original documents primilary Hebrew and Greek.

    About every ten years this process has been done again.

    In 1971, the New American Standard Bible was produced.

    In 1980, the New International Version was produced.

    In 2001, the English Standard Version was produced.

    Each of the above translations took about ten years so the process for each began about ten years before the finished work appeared.

    The people who are confused have either never read it or have rejected its message.

    Anyone who reads the Bible and wants to understand it does.

    Pastor Art

  • 1 decade ago

    You have said here near enough exactly what it took me 3 separate questions to try to convey. Okay, my version was a little more focused on how the Bible can be interpreted as hateful, but ya it was technically this same thing.

    It needs to be more understandable to us all. Perhaps if the original documentation was to be found, examined and translated over again, then re-interpreted fully, it may be a very different bible.

    for example

    Direct translation - donkey of donkey I is

    First interpretation - I am donkey's donkey

    re-interpretation - I need a shower (I smell like a donkey's @ss)

    Just an example, I'm not expecting to see this in the new Bible.

    And I thought I'd get the first hug in. *hugs you*

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are three separate issues involved your question.

    First is textual transmission. Scholars agree that we have a very reliable text in the original languages to work with. The large number of very old texts coupled with the highly developed principles of textual criticism has ensured this.

    The second issue is translation. Translators try to keep their biases out of their translations but some degree of interpretation is necessary in any translation of a foreign language text. This is why it is good to have so many different translations from so many different perspectives. A reader who is unfamiliar with the original languages can consult many different translations. For biblical studies there are also a large number of study tools that can help the novice do informed word studies. I like literal translations like the New American Standard the best. Though they do have a more wooden style, I find them more reliable for serious study.

    The last issue is interpretation. It is good to see that books on hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) such as Fee and Stuart's "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" have sold well in Christian circles. When we are guided by solid, objective principles of interpretation rather than mere subjective feelings, we are more likely to arrive at the authors' intended meanings.

    To sum up, we already have a reliable text to work with, we have many good translations to compare, and many Christians are starting to better understand principles of interpretation. I don't see a genuine weak spot here. You mention translations and there are more made all the time. If you would like to get the education needed and add one of your own I would be glad to read it!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.