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?

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Unless a specific translation is utterly corrupt, all Translations contain the Mysterious, hidden Plan of God. Because this Plan has been intellectually kept hidden from the unelect (by God Himself), this Plan is challenging to remove.

My point is that "we" focus on "discrepancies" far too much instead of recognizing the actual Story of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Blue Letter Bible, available online, offers about 14 or 15 translations, and they all contain the Mysterious Plan of God. Even my Jewish Tanakh beautifully outlines the Gospel of Jesus Christ, though it only offers the standard Old Testament books.

It is of utmost importance that we are able to not only describe the Gospel of Christ . . . but explain it. We need to figure out what Philip said to the eunuch in his chariot as they traveled together. If the Gospel were as simple as, "It's the Good News of Jesus Christ!" Philip would not need to enter the chariot. Philip needed time to show the miraculous Plan of God through the Old Testament Scriptures that the eunuch possessed. After Philip explained this miraculous story, the eunuch could place Faith into the whole and True Gospel. This means that Philip explained the Purpose of Christ, the Work of Christ, and the Effect of Christ. And after the eunuch accepted the whole Gospel, he agreed to it. The eunuch Believed, then Submitted, then Obeyed, and perhaps slowly, his Spiritual sense of confidence would increase. Lastly, the eunuch would undoubtedly begin to proclaim this same Plan of Salvation to those over whom he might have influence.

For example, we don't need to be concerned about the complete differences in the story of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver . . . who cares about that stuff. But instead, we must focus on understanding the same Gospel that Philip delivered to the eunuch.

 

[jaybo]

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.

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

Give me a break!

a) What in your opinion is the REAL text of scripture? The Bible has been translated from a number of ancient languages and many sources. There is no REAL text of Scripture that exists anywhere.
b) I never said that Hebrew was more gender neutral than English. That is untrue. What I said is that there is a gender bias in English that doesn't accurately convey the meaning of the ancient languages. Again, for example, according to context, the Greek plural noun ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) may mean physical brothers, physical brothers and sisters, figurative brothers, or figurative brothers and sisters. Surely, as a student, you can understand that principle.
c) "Those scholars are twisting the Word, not me."??? By your own admission, you are are just a student. Do you tell your professors that you know more than they do?
d) If you are going to twist what I wrote, there is no point in having this discussion.

 

[D-D-W]

Give me a break!

a) What in your opinion is the REAL text of scripture? The Bible has been translated from a number of ancient languages and many sources. There is no REAL text of Scripture that exists anywhere.

The Masoretic OT is as close as we can get to the real text. It is in the same language.

b) I never said that Hebrew was more gender neutral than English.

Actually you did. Right here:

The problem is that English is a masculine-oriented language, whereas the Bible languages are not.

Hebrew is one of the Bible languages you refer to.

 

[Aussie]

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?

DDW,

Did you mean "masculine or feminine" gender and not case?

Oz

 

[jaybo]

The Masoretic OT is as close as we can get to the real text. It is in the same language.

Actually you did. Right here:

Hebrew is one of the Bible languages you refer to.

In the same language as what? The Masoretic OT is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text. It differs in a number of places from the Hebrew text, so which is the "real text" in your opinion?

What I am trying to say is that in the translation of the Greek, the translators of the NRSVue tried to render the meaning of the source text away from the gender bias that exists in modern English into the more gender-neutral meaning of the source text.

You are obviously caught up in today's political climate instead of impartial scholarship. I believe the committee of scholars, not the one person interpretation by you, a student.

 

[D-D-W]

In the same language as what? The Masoretic OT is a Greek translation of the Hebrew text. It differs in a number of places from the Hebrew text, so which is the "real text" in your opinion?

No, you are confusing the Masoretic (Hebrew) text with the LXX Septuagint (Greek) text from the 200s bc.

The Masoretic text was done by a group of rabbis and scholars (named the Masorites) who took it upon themselves to invent and then add a system of vowel pointing to Hebrew and Aramaic texts to preserve the pronunciation of the language following their expulsion from the Land in 135 ad.

What I am trying to say is that in the translation of the Greek, the translators of the NRSVue tried to render the meaning of the source text away from the gender bias that exists in modern English into the more gender-neutral meaning of the source text.

The whole "gender bias" thing is a modern invention. It should be ignored, but doing damage to the text is NOT the way to ignore it. Pastors should be teaching their congregations how to understand from the original language texts (as best as we have them)

You are obviously caught up in today's political climate instead of impartial scholarship. I believe the committee of scholars, not the one person interpretation by you, a student.

I do not believe that "impartial scholarship" is even possible. But fortunately the text of the NT has told us who is qualified to be the proper scholars of biblical interpretation:

Romans 3:1
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

 

[jaybo]

No, you are confusing the Masoretic (Hebrew) text with the LXX Septuagint (Greek) text from the 200s bc.

The Masoretic text was done by a group of rabbis and scholars (named the Masorites) who took it upon themselves to invent and then add a system of vowel pointing to Hebrew and Aramaic texts to preserve the pronunciation of the language following their expulsion from the Land in 135 ad.

The whole "gender bias" thing is a modern invention. It should be ignored, but doing damage to the text is NOT the way to ignore it. Pastors should be teaching their congregations how to understand from the original language texts (as best as we have them)

I do not believe that "impartial scholarship" is even possible. But fortunately the text of the NT has told us who is qualified to be the proper scholars of biblical interpretation:

Romans 3:1
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

I stand corrected. I wasn't thinking clearly due to other issues going on.

 

[D-D-W]

I stand corrected. I wasn't thinking clearly due to other issues going on.

OK - It is all good. We all have stuff going on.
Just wanted to make the record straight.