Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[jaybo]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

The Greek pronouns often refer to people in general; they are not gender-specific. It is like saying to a group of men and women, "hey guys, let's go get a pizza". Of course that is referencing the whole group, not just the males. Because we have become more aware of the importance of gender in our modern society, the male pronouns in the Greek can be misinterpreted. The NIV (and other modern translations) take this into account. It doesn't change "man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters"; it reinterprets them to be accurately understood by our modern minds the way they were understood by the hearers, i.e., gender neutral.

 

[D-D-W]

The Greek pronouns often refer to people in general; they are not gender-specific. It is like saying to a group of men and women, "hey guys, let's go get a pizza". Of course that is referencing the whole group, not just the males. Because we have become more aware of the importance of gender in our modern society, the male pronouns in the Greek can be misinterpreted. The NIV (and other modern translations) take this into account. It doesn't change "man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters"; it reinterprets them to be accurately understood by our modern minds the way they were understood by the hearers, i.e., gender neutral.

In all ancient (pre 1950) languages, if you had a group of a thousand women and ONE man, the group was referred to in the masculine. IF the group was entirely women it was in the feminine.

 

[Aussie]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

Louis,

The NIV is NOT making a "pc" translation. It is a meaning-for-meaning translation and not a literal translation. Same applies to the New Living Translation but it has more breadth in its translation.

Oz

 

[Aussie]

One can pick and choose what one would prefer Jesus to have said.

Examine the context to see which plurals are used.

Oz

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Louis,

The NIV is NOT making a "pc" translation. It is a meaning-for-meaning translation and not a literal translation. Same applies to the New Living Translation but it has more breadth in its translation.

Oz

Sounds good except I’ve noticed these “meaning for meaning” works are done by viewing the words through the colored glasses of a particular theology or thinking brought to the text. For example, a word in Hebrew is “youth” which is a particular age but the one working on the “translation” uses “childhood” because of their chosen theology. This changes the text away from the original according to the author (who didn’t use “child”) but fits the modern man’s theology.

The one working on the text has to assume that understands EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE in the Bible because that is what he claims he is writing. He says “the meaning” but it’s really “his meaning.”

 

[jaybo]

Sounds good except I’ve noticed these “meaning for meaning” works are done by viewing the words through the colored glasses of a particular theology or thinking brought to the text. For example, a word in Hebrew is “youth” which is a particular age but the one working on the “translation” uses “childhood” because of their chosen theology. This changes the text away from the original according to the author (who didn’t use “child”) but fits the modern man’s theology.

The one working on the text has to assume that understands EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE in the Bible because that is what he claims he is writing. He says “the meaning” but it’s really “his meaning.”

This is simply your opinion. a) What are your translator qualifications? b) What particular age is "youth"? And how is that so different from "childhood"? c) And where did you get the idea that the Hebrew word is correctly translated as "youth"?

It is obvious that you are manufacturing "straw" arguments when there is no basis for doing so. Translation is both an art and a science, the goal of which should be understanding by the reader. That is where "word-for-word" translations fail, since the text must be understood within the parameters of the receiving culture. Sine we live roughly two thousand years after the last "books" were written, and none of us in the Western world live even remotely like the original hearers lived, modern translations such as the NIV are excellent renditions of God's word.

 

[jaybo]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

The problem is that English is a masculine-oriented language, whereas the Bible languages are not. Modern translations make an effort to correct this problem by translating the words as gender-neutral -- the original meaning -- instead of masculine. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

My favorite translation is now the recently-published NRSVue (New Revised Standard Version update edition). From the preface: The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions.

Here is a comment about it (with my emphasis): The NRSVue clarifies and updates the existing translation based on the last thirty years of biblical scholarship. Findings from new manuscripts discovered since the last update are incorporated. The update also includes some inclusive language and cultural sensitivity in order to amend biases present in the previous edition. Over 12,000 substantive edits and 20,000 total changes were made throughout the editing process. The NRSVue continues to emphasize accuracy and clarity based on the principle of “as literal as possible, as free as necessary”. This translation ethos has made it a beloved translation across the English-speaking ecumenical world.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is simply your opinion.

The Bereans were considered “more noble” because they “searched the scriptures to see is these things be true” without any qualifications whatsoever. That’s the great thing about Christianity, we can reason and think ans arrive at the truth without “worldly educated” and therefore “qualified” people. What makes the authors of the Gospels “qualified?” They knew Jesus.

a) What are your translator qualifications? b) What particular age is "youth"?

You don’t know the difference between a three year old and a teenager? Really?

And how is that so different from "childhood"?

You don’t know the difference between a three year old and a teenager? Really?

c) And where did you get the idea that the Hebrew word is correctly translated as "youth"?

I read it.

It is obvious that you are manufacturing "straw" arguments when there is no basis for doing so.

No, I’m not.

Translation is both an art and a science, the goal of which should be understanding by the reader. That is where "word-for-word" translations fail, since the text must be understood within the parameters of the receiving culture. Sine we live roughly two thousand years after the last "books" were written, and none of us in the Western world live even remotely like the original hearers lived, modern translations such as the NIV are excellent renditions of God's word.

If that’s your view, good luck. You’ll have to trust people to tell you what to believe, unlike the Bereans.

 

[Aussie]

Sounds good except I’ve noticed these “meaning for meaning” works are done by viewing the words through the colored glasses of a particular theology or thinking brought to the text. For example, a word in Hebrew is “youth” which is a particular age but the one working on the “translation” uses “childhood” because of their chosen theology. This changes the text away from the original according to the author (who didn’t use “child”) but fits the modern man’s theology.

The one working on the text has to assume that understands EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE in the Bible because that is what he claims he is writing. He says “the meaning” but it’s really “his meaning.”

Dorothy,

Meaning-for-meaning is called dynamic equivalence, where the meaning in, say, Greek NT, is equivalent to the meaning in English.

Oz

 

[Aussie]

The Bereans were considered “more noble” because they “searched the scriptures to see is these things be true” without any qualifications whatsoever. That’s the great thing about Christianity, we can reason and think ans arrive at the truth without “worldly educated” and therefore “qualified” people. What makes the authors of the Gospels “qualified?” They knew Jesus.

Dorothy,

Are you saying that no qualifications in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are needed to translate the Scriptures and that no reasoning is needed?

Oz

 

[D-D-W]

The problem is that English is a masculine-oriented language, whereas the Bible languages are not. Modern translations make an effort to correct this problem by translating the words as gender-neutral -- the original meaning -- instead of masculine. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

WHAT??? Actually the Biblical Hebrew does not even have a neuter case, it is all either masculine or feminine; and it is mostly masculine. I am taking a course in biblical Hebrew right now, (about half way thru) and are studying the pronouns in the last and next class. There is nothing "gender neutral" in that language at all.

Where did you get such an idea?

 

[jaybo]

WHAT??? Actually the Biblical Hebrew does not even have a neuter case, it is all either masculine or feminine; and it is mostly masculine. I am taking a course in biblical Hebrew right now, (about half way thru) and are studying the pronouns in the last and next class. There is nothing "gender neutral" in that language at all.

Where did you get such an idea?

Apparently you didn't read my post #327. Here is part of it...

From the preface: The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions.

Since you're a student I accept the work of scholars instead of your opinion.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy,

Meaning-for-meaning is called dynamic equivalence, where the meaning in, say, Greek NT, is equivalent to the meaning in English.

Oz

Thanks for that civil answer. I appreciate it. But it still means that the translatOR understands without error every single sentence in the Bible. That alone is a hefty claim.

If I translate from my second language into my mother tongue word for word with only syntax changes, I don’t claim to understand all. If I change what was said to what I THINK the author meant, I run the risk of missing it altogether. I have heard translators of modern languages doing this whereby a second language fluent person objected saying that the translation does NOT reflect what THEY THOUGHT the message was. See the problem?

I’ve heard, for example, bits from the Message Bible, and KNEW that the words that conveyed a tone was one that the original author would NEVER have used. (It was defiant.) The author of that work only THOUGHT he was conveying the meaning. It was actually extremely biased and missed the thought entirely. It reflected his very personal anger towards God and not at all what David said.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy,

Are you saying that no qualifications in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are needed to translate the Scriptures and that no reasoning is needed?

Oz

No, but there’s a difference between translating and reading. In christianity one needn’t learn Greek to understand the New Testament like the Muslims have to learn a whole foreign to understand Mohammed’s work. Or do you think only theologians understand the scripture?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Apparently you didn't read my post #327. Here is part of it...

From the preface: The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions.

Since you're a student I accept the work of scholars instead of your opinion.

Except the “gender bias” is in the original languages.

 

[jaybo]

Thanks for that civil answer. I appreciate it. But it still means that the translatOR understands without error every single sentence in the Bible. That alone is a hefty claim.

If I translate from my second language into my mother tongue word for word with only syntax changes, I don’t claim to understand all. If I change what was said to what I THINK the author meant, I run the risk of missing it altogether. I have heard translators of modern languages doing this whereby a second language fluent person objected saying that the translation does NOT reflect what THEY THOUGHT the message was. See the problem?

I’ve heard, for example, bits from the Message Bible, and KNEW that the words that conveyed a tone was one that the original author would NEVER have used. (It was defiant.) The author of that work only THOUGHT he was conveying the meaning. It was actually extremely biased and missed the thought entirely. It reflected his very personal anger towards God and not at all what David said.

The Message is a paraphrase. It's purpose is to convey the meaning the Biblical texts without regard for accuracy in translation. I'm surprised that you don't know that.

Can you be more specific about what you're referring to when you write that "it was actually extremely biased and missed the thought entirely. It reflected his very personal anger towards God and not at all what David said"?

 

[jaybo]

Except the “gender bias” is in the original languages.

Is there something that you don't understand about: It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language?

According to context, the Greek plural noun ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) may mean physical brothers, physical brothers and sisters, figurative brothers, or figurative brothers and sisters. Many English translations translate ἀδελφοί as "brothers" when it clearly means "brothers and sisters". That is what is meant by the gender bias inherent in the English language. Do you really not understand that?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The Message is a paraphrase. It's purpose is to convey the meaning the Biblical texts without regard for accuracy in translation. I'm surprised that you don't know that.

I’m surprised you think I don’t know that. But it means he was writing down meaning for meaning according to his theology, which is quite limited.

Can you be more specific about what you're referring to when you write that "it was actually extremely biased and missed the thought entirely. It reflected his very personal anger towards God and not at all what David said"?

Start a new thread in The Message” because I’m not derailing this one. But you need to
learn to be more civil and drop
the as hominem.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Is there something that you don't understand about: It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language?

You need to stop being abusive!
Do you realize that the ancient languages HAVE genders and if the author avoid gender bias, they must avoid the gender bias inherent in the ancient languages. This is pretty obvious.

According to context, the Greek plural noun ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) may mean physical brothers, physical brothers and sisters, figurative brothers, or figurative brothers and sisters. Many English translations translate ἀδελφοί as "brothers" when it clearly means "brothers and sisters". That is what is meant by the gender bias inherent in the English language. Do you really not understand that?

You ever heard the ENGLISH word, “brethren”? It means brothers and sisters. Do you really not know that?

But I will tell you what CHANGING away from the original and making it politically correct does. The book is change by the culture that has gotten dumber to be on that level. In previous generations, the Bible actually raised the intellectual level of the culture. The people adjusted their minds to the Bible. One can read letters from the 18th century and they reflect a high level of thinking sometimes quoting the Bible. Luther’s Bible changed the German language. The Bible changed the people. But we change the Bible.

 

[D-D-W]

Apparently you didn't read my post #327. Here is part of it...

From the preface: The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions.

Yes, the NRSV tries to be "gender sensitive" and sensitive to a modern mindset, at the expense of doing damage to the REAL text of scripture.

Since you're a student I accept the work of scholars instead of your opinion.

You were the one saying that Hebrew was more gender neutral than English. The scholars are trying to offset what they see as bias that was carried thru in earlier translations. Those scholars are twisting the Word, not me.

BTW, the class I am taking is from The Israel Institute of Biblical Studies, which is a division of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I think their scholars know something about the Hebrew language.

Learn Biblical Hebrew, Greek & Aramaic - Israel Institute of Biblical Studies

Discover the beauty of biblical languages with our online courses. Learn biblical Hebrew, biblical Greek and even dive into the fascinating world of Aramaic. Start your journey to unravel the scriptures and deepen your understanding today. Join our interactive biblical language lessons and...

israelbiblicalstudies.com