(September 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote:(September 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Well, of course you don't. You're using what seems to be crappy translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
Why do you consider it a crappy translation? And why do you trust your favored translation more?
As explained in the Wikipedia link, it seems to be biased towards translating the OT in favor of the NT's readings of it. I'd rather use a bible that translates the OT to mean what it originally meant rather than favor what's likely anachronistic rereadings of the NT writers.
I also don't like using gender neutral language in translating historical texts. I don't want the force the text to appeal to modern audiences. I want it warts and all.
I prefer literal translations as long as they're not unreadable.
The RSV I use the most because I've been told that it's more objective than others. If you look here the only criticism of it seem to be that it stepped on the toes of Christian doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Sta...of_the_RSV
It undoubtedly though has its own problems and I do not pretend to argue that it's the best.
As for Ezekiel, it's not just the RSV that translates to render as God commanding child sacrifice so you're not out of hot water yet.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
