(May 7, 2012 at 10:23 am)Ryft Wrote:

(May 7, 2012 at 4:55 am)DeeTee Wrote: The latest or more recent translations are suspect as the influences from the secular world are getting stronger. One has to remember that God promised to preserve His word so one does not have to worry as long as they rely on the Holy Spirit to lead them to that preserved work.

Wait, so God promised to preserve his word ... only until about 1980? After that, secular influences would become too strong for him?

I agree with you here Ryft. It is absurd to think that an all-powerful and all-knowing god would inspired and directly commission a piece of work so vital, so important for his creation and leave it flapping in the wind, subjected to mistranslation, misinterpretation, interpolation and forgery, yet that is what has happened. It is a doosy!

(May 7, 2012 at 8:03 pm)michaelsherlock Wrote: It is a doosy!

(May 7, 2012 at 4:55 am)DeeTee Wrote: ...

The three best I have found are the KJV, the 1974 0r 80 NIV and the NASB, I think the 1972 or 76 version. I do not remember off hand. The latest or more recent translations are suspect as the influences from the secular world are getting stronger.
...

Oh no! We can't have translators use the latest research and undermine our unsupported theological beliefs!

(May 7, 2012 at 9:05 pm)Ryft Wrote:

(May 7, 2012 at 8:03 pm)michaelsherlock Wrote: It is a doosy!

Beautiful car.

The New International Version copyright 1984. The Message also is good, but not for the main version and only for the New Testament.

It just occurred to me that the type of apologetically motivated "corrections" made in translating the text into English (e.g. Psalm 22:16, "Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.") are the exact kind of scribal corruptions that many argue the scribes of old were careful to avoid, or that they are, if present, few and far between. And yet this form of intentional scribal corruption is rampant in English translations. So much for the reliability argument.

(May 18, 2012 at 5:19 pm)apophenia Wrote: And yet this form of intentional scribal corruption is rampant in English translations. So much for the reliability argument.

Here, too, there is reason why I value the NET:

Psalm 22:16 – "Yes, wild dogs surround me—a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet."

Translation notes on the Hebrew – "like a lion, my hands and my feet" – This reading is often emended because it is grammatically awkward, but perhaps its awkwardness is by rhetorical design. Its broken syntax may be intended to convey the panic and terror felt by the psalmist. The psalmist may envision a lion pinning the hands and feet of its victim to the ground with its paws (a scene depicted in ancient Near Eastern art), or a lion biting the hands and feet. The line has been traditionally translated, "they pierce my hands and feet," and then taken as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ. Though Jesus does appropriate the language of this psalm while on the cross (compare Psa. 22:1 with Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34), the NT does not cite this verse in describing the death of Jesus. (It does refer to Psa. 22:7-8 and Psa. 22:18, however. See Matt. 27:35, 39, 43; Mark 15:24, 29; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24.) If one were to insist on an emendation of כָּאֲרִי (ka'ariy, "like a lion") to a verb, the most likely verbal root would be כָּרָה (karah, "dig"; see the Septuagint (LXX)). In this context this verb could refer to the gnawing and tearing of wild dogs (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV). The ancient Greek version produced by Symmachus reads "bind" here, perhaps understanding a verbal root כרך, which is attested in later Hebrew and Aramaic and means "to encircle, entwine, embrace" (see HALOT 497-98 s.v. כרך and Jastrow 668 s.v. כָּרַךְ). Neither one of these proposed verbs can yield a meaning "bore, pierce."

Divinely inspired book in 'being able to mean almost anything' shocker

1) Douay-Rheims (from the Latin Vulgate)
2) NAB (used by the USCCB)
3) RSV-CE (used in the Navarre Study Bibles)

I use others as I need them (or enjoy them), but these are the main ones I use daily. I don't have a hard-copy of the Douay-Rheims though and only have the NT RSV-CE (for now!), so I have to use the web for them.

I visited a religious order this weekend (couldn't stay the whole weekend though sadly), and among their translations in their library was a feminist NT translation: "the Son" became "the Begotten"; "Son of Man" became "Chosen One", "the Father" became "Abba God"; and "kingdom" became "kindom". Emphasizing kinship rather than the "(male) ruler".

(May 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Aiza Wrote: 1) Douay-Rheims (from the Latin Vulgate)
2) NAB (used by the USCCB)
3) RSV-CE (used in the Navarre Study Bibles)

I use others as I need them (or enjoy them), but these are the main ones I use daily. I don't have a hard-copy of the Douay-Rheims though and only have the NT RSV-CE (for now!), so I have to use the web for them.

I visited a religious order this weekend (couldn't stay the whole weekend though sadly), and among their translations in their library was a feminist NT translation: "the Son" became "the Begotten"; "Son of Man" became "Chosen One", "the Father" became "Abba God"; and "kingdom" became "kindom". Emphasizing kinship rather than the "(male) ruler".

It is all about marketing! In Papua New Guinea and Tahiti, for example, the texts of the NT have been changed to describe Jesus, not as the "Bread of Life," for bread is not a staple there, but as the, "Sweet-Potato of Life!" Sales and Marketing, Sales and marketing!