/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 27 March 1999 /
I must confess that I love reading and proclaiming Tyndale's Bible. That is to say, I always approach the text with great Fear & Trembling (but also with Joy), for it is the very Word of God empowered by the Spirit of Truth and Love as given in the Sacred Scriptures of the One True Faith. Now the approved English text of the Catholic Church of Canada (being also the liturgical source-text) is the New Revised Standard Version; which is not at all a bad version (as versions go).
.
So the NRSV is surely a product of many labors, many minds, and many generations. Indeed, it is the work of the Church as a whole; guided by the providence of "the Father of Lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning" (Jm 1:17). But it is also the labor of the Spirit of Christ working through the efforts of just one man: William Tyndale (1494-1536). And although it is certainly true that he did not translate the entire Bible, and that his text has undergone many and major changes over the centuries, nonetheless, whenever I read the NRSV it is not uncommon to hear Tyndale's poetic voice subtly sneaking out of the text.
.
Just think of it: the voice of this one young man, this saint and poet and martyr, who remains unknown and unappreciated by almost every living Christian today, is heard throughout the land by many churches and many peoples. Yet here is a man that every Christian should surely know and love. He lived only to serve the People of God by giving them the Body of Christ as incarnated in the printed, sacred page, in the Book of Truth & Love, which is also the very voice of our Lord (if we but have ears to hear).
.
So anyway, his extreme dedication to his fatal outlawed mission did not go unnoticed or unrewarded. In due course he was hunted and hounded and chased across Europe until he was betrayed, arrested, imprisoned; and finally killed as a heretic. Yet he did not much care for any of that. Even to the very end, in that cold and damp, dark and gloomy cell that was his home and prison cell, he gave all his thought and energy to translating the OT! Now that's what I call dedication to the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
/ Topic > Re: What do you think about NIV version? / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible / Date > 22 Jan 1999 /
> Suphareok Sibunruang writes: Last week, a pastor from USA told me that NIV version is not the best one.
.
textman answers: Dear SS, s/he is correct. However, when you consider that there are hundreds (thousands?) of different versions available (in various formats), its nice to know that the NIV will always be on the top-ten-bibles list. It may not be *the* best version; but then again, it doesn't have to be. The mere fact that it is vastly better than the majority of other popular versions is sufficient to justify its use for both public and private reading; as well as personal study and devotions. I love my little NIV New Testament for several reasons:
.
1. It is a very good translation!
.
2. I have had it for over twenty years! The front cover finally broke off it about a month ago; so I use an elastic band to hold it on :)
.
3. Physical attributes [*very* important!]: Crisp, clean, AND readable text (one column per page) on top quality paper (ie. the pages still feel smooth to the touch; not rough (and/or transparent), as with some versions). Color: still a good white generally; although now a slight yellowing around the edges (especially on the now-cover page :) Secondary apparatus/notes (ie. reader aids, etc): non-obtrusive ...
.
4. Also, book size [also very important!]: I don't think the scripture publishers really pay sufficient attention to all the gross physical details and dimensions of their Bibles and NT's and Apocrypha's, etc. The NAB personal edition is a good example of the complete Bible in one easily accessible package. The text is a little too small for my tastes, but it's still my favorite portable Book (complete). But in any case, my little NIV NT is even more portable: 12cm tall (4.75") and just over 7cm wide (just under 3"). Now I very like the pocketbook size and format Bibles too; but my copy is about half the size of a regular pocketbook, and I have yet to see any edition of any version that is even half as attractive. It fits the hand like a glove; goes anywhere; is easy to read; is an acceptable translation; and allows the Word to always be near me. What more can any true believer ask of any edition?
.
Well done Zondervan! My only complaint is that the front cover fell off!
.
> The charismatic churches do not use NIV version, only the evangelical church.
.
Really? I'm surprised to hear that, actually.
.
> The famous preacher do not use NIV version.
.
You mean Billy Graham? :)
.
> TV on USA do not use NIV version for quoting.
.
Ha! That don't mean diddly-sqwatt!
.
> There is a book writing about every versions of Bible's backgrounds.
.
Yes. And the NIV also has a study version. But I generally don't recommend Study Bibles; because they tend to encourage over-reliance on the narrow and ill-informed biblical scholarship that is supposed to be there in the first place to support the text (but generally fails to do an adequate job of it)! ... If textman could publish his own version (PV - Prophet Version) in a study bible edition, you may rest assured that it would be very *very* different from the trash that gets passed around as popular (or 'student') "study bibles" today!
.
> It says someone in NIV team for translation do not born again and someone are gays.
.
This is utterly irrelevant. The personal shortcomings of this or that member of the team (even if true) do not detract from what the team as a whole accomplished. The NIV was a collaborative effort. In this good approach to scripture, it goes back to a tradition that began when Paul and Silvanus first sat down together to hammer out the Christian epistle from out of the rough blocks of ancient letter-writing conventions.
.
> I'm neutral and want to listen to as much as opinions as possible. So, what do you think?
.
I think maybe you should not be so neutral! :) My final conclusions as to the matter of which translation is best, is as follows: the best NT is 'The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament' by Tyndale House Publishers, 1990. It uses the Greek NT of the UBS; which is to say, the 4th/Corrected Edition. ... Well, after all, anything less is a step away from the original pristine sources.
.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you *really* want to see the Word clearly, LEARN SOME KOINE! NT Greek is *not* difficult to grasp. If you can learn the Greek alphabet, and fifty or so common NT words, and know how to use Greek lexicons, grammars, etc, then you'll already have a tremendous advantage over ALL those Readers who *think* that they can't "master" a complex ancient language. The good news is that you don't have to master anything! You can go as deeply into the tongue as you wish, and all of it adds to your enjoyment and understanding of the Word of God. ...
.
Please *do* check it out! Bible societies are always in need of Believers who can read (and translate!) the Greek text of the NT.
/ Subject > Re: A Bible / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible / Date > 7 May 1999 /
.
> On 19Mar99 JohnJRIII wrote: I hardly think that the NRSV or the NASB are appropriate for a beginner.
.
textman answers: Dear John, I'll have to take exception to this statement. The reason being that the most appropriate version for any reader is obviously the best translation that they can obtain. Moreover, if you are a Canadian Catholic, the NRSV is clearly the best choice since that version also happens to be the official liturgical text that is used in the Pharisees' steeple-houses.
.
Personally, I don't think anyone should rely exclusively on any one version (at least not for serious study), but if you must restrict yourself to one translation only, you might as well make it a good one. However, I will agree that the NRSV and NASB may not be the best texts for children and those who find the English language difficult to take.
.
> Try the New International Version for good conversational English
.
Being easier to read than both the NRSV and NASB, but nevertheless a top-notch translation ...
.
> or Today's English Version for an easy vocabulary.
.
Suitable for children and teenagers and others among the intellectually challenged ...
But *very* not recommended for serious study.
.
> When you are ready to investigate intricate theological shadings you can seek out
> a more literal translation.
.
Most of those versions that claim to be a literal translation are not nearly as literal as they might wish to be; and this includes even the NASB, which brazenly claims to be 'the standard of biblical excellence'. Arrogance and accuracy rarely go together well to the benefit of the general reader. Moreover, the only truly literal translations are those found in the interlinear versions. In any case, 'literal-ness' as such is vastly overrated, in my opinion. Faithfulness to the sources is one thing; a literal translation is something else. The two are NOT one and the same thing. For example, it is commonly supposed, even by the translators, that the best way to proceed is to provide one 'equivalent' English word for one Greek word. 'One for one' is thus the heart and soul of literal translating. Usually this is acceptable. Usually. But the Greek Koine language is such that often it is not possible to find one equivalent English word for a given Greek term. In these cases I have no problem with using two or more words to get across the idea in question. Consequently, dynamic-paraphrasing is an essential and necessary feature of any good translation; provided only that it is not overdone (as with the Jerusalem bibles). Therefore, do not be much impressed by bogus claims to literal-ness, and avoid those versions that are heavy with dynamic-paraphrasing. The best renditions provide a necessary balance between the literal and paraphrase methods.
.
> We don't have to be scholars to learn about God's love and His plan for our salvation.
.
That's true enough. The Scriptures are able to speak to anyone, wherever they may be on their spiritual journey, and whatever their particular conditions or circumstances. Everyone can benefit from reading the Word of God; if they do so in humility and with thanksgiving. But it *does* require some effort on the part of the reader. Determination and joy in the reading can carry anyone a long way toward understanding and enlightenment ... But eventually the need for guidance will become apparent. Biblical commentaries will then cease to be superfluous, but will become the necessary tools with which to unravel the mysteries of the sacred text. These will also take the reader a long way forward ...
.
But full appreciation of the Word will also require putting yourself (at some point) at the feet of those non-scholarly teachers and preachers who appreciate the Bible in ways that are sorely lacking in the scholars. One can often learn more from one pious saint than from a dozen 'objective' bible scholars! When you feel the need to seek out guides in your biblical explorations, do so very carefully; for there are many false teachers who will cheerfully lead you down the garden path to error and heresy. Nor should you blindly place your trust in recognized or authorized leaders and teachers; for they often twist the scriptures to their own benefit, and thus do great violence to the Word. Therefore, always use discretion and discernment (to the best of your ability), and be not quick to jump to conclusions (for first
impressions can often be misleading).
.
As to which version is best for you: any version is better than none at all! Thus it is often the case that the best version is simply which ever one you happen to be reading ...
/ Topic > Re: Which Version? / Date > 10 Sept 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.episcopal, alt.christnet.calvinist /
.
> The DataRat wrote: The NRSV isn't a bad translation. The NASB and the NIV are better. But, the NRSV ain't
> fatally flawed. You can bet your lunch money, however, that just about everyone who ~prefers~ the NRSV
> is a liberal / humanist / naturalist. It's their favorite version. -- The DataRat
.
textman replies: Not only that, but it's also the official liturgical text of the Roman Catholic Church (corrupt and debased Canadian edition). Accordingly, we might suppose that the majority of Canadian Cats are liberals; which, I guess, is a fair statement. But when we consider that the NRSV is the great-granddaughter of the grossly over-rated KJV, it seems an odd choice for the Cats to pick this "protestant" bible. On the other hand, the NRSV *IS* slightly better than the New American Bible (the best version Cats are capable of), and much better than the New Jerusalem Bible. Of course, any version approved by the Cats is immediately suspect (it was chosen because the NRSV is more "inclusive"), but then they could have done worse. In any case, the RSV remains (in general) the better version for serious bible study.
.
> The DataRat wrote: You'll find the NIV and the NASB a lot closer, a lot more often, than the NIV and
> the NRSV. Just one of ~many~ example being John 3:3, where the NIV and NASB use "born again",
> while the NRSV renders it "born from above".
.
textman replies: It's interesting that you should pick that particular example, DR, because I was just yesterday thinking of this very verse. And it seems to me that the NRSV has here chosen wisely between the two available readings. Within the context of the surrounding text (and the gospel of John as a whole) the reading 'born from above' makes much more sense, and is very probably the original rendering. As for the NIV and NASB, could it be that here is yet another example of how theological biases determine the "preferred" reading?
The Most Inspired Version
/ Topic > Re: Dual authorities / Date > 30 Sept 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnline > BATTLE TALK / NewsGroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics /
.
> On 28Sept Explosived dared to manifest his vile thoughts and subversive opinions in a most
> highly offensive manner thusly: I believe Inspiration and Preservation are done by God. I have
> ONE final authority, the KJV. I have more respect for the man who says the NIV is Gods word
> than someone who runs to the Greek, trying to get you to accept THEM as final authorities.
.
Upon the reading of which the textman was hugely miffed and thus sayeth: Since I see that many of the cyber-saints are genuinely interested in, concerned about, and/or confused by this tangled problem of inspired translations, I will now attempt to clarify the matter somewhat. Firstly, observe please the following verses:
.
"And for this very reason apply all diligence to lavishly equip your faith with courageous and effective excellence, your excellence with practical knowledge, your knowledge with self-control and restraint, your self-control with patience and endurance, your endurance with practical religion, your religion with brotherly love, and your brotherly love with divine love. For when these things are abounding within you, they will make you effective and productive in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 2Peter 1:5-8 / Prophet Version
.
Now I will invite everyone to find ANY published English version that is better than this one. I suspect that you will not be able to find even one superior translation anywhere because ALL of the popular versions are flawed in one way or another. Therefore it ought to be clear to the reader that the most inspired translation is the *BEST* translation! And the best translation is the one that most accurately and faithfully expresses the inspired author's actual and intended thoughts in such a way that these thoughts are simply and effectively transmitted to the reader.
.
Thus translation is not merely a question of changing words from one language to another (ie. Greek to English), but it also involves the more intangible element of literary quality. That is, the translator must also be able to communicate the emotional tone and personal energy of the author's vision. And it is just at this highly subjective level of interpersonal communication that most translators err by inserting their own emotions and assumptions in place of the original author's (which they usually assume to be identical with their own). And this is why all modern English translations are flawed: because the translators lack enough respect for the original author so as to allow him to speak in a way that allows his own emotions and assumptions to empower and enliven the words and images he uses.
.
A good version of any given text is thus one wherein the translation AND the translator are as transparent as possible. By this yardstick, therefore, the KJV-only debate is clearly seen to be a non-issue; for while the KJV can be accused of many things, transparency is certainly NOT one of them!
P.S. "Most of what is divine escapes recognition through unbelief." -- Heraclitus
/ Re: Can We Trust The NIV ? you judge ... / Date > 4 Jan 1999 / Newsgroups > alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> roger martin wrote: <snip> Maybe we should go back to square one and just hand out the ancient
> Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts. Would that be "pure" enough?
.
You bettcha! There is absolutely no substitute for the Greek text of the New Testament. It holds many 'secrets' that are unavoidably lost in any translation. Alas, that is the nature of the translating beast.
.
> Now of course if they were attacking the NRSV, then I'd probably have to go along....
.
Me too. I rather think that the NRSV is a big step down from the good ol Revised Standard Version; which remains my favorite English translation, and is still the best for all serious bible study.
/ Subject > Re: Which bible should I get? / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible / Date > 21 July 1999 /
.
> The DataRat wrote: <much snippage> Bro. Rat uses two Bibles in tandem for most of his studies: The NASB
> and the NIV. The NASB being very literal, and the NIV having dynamic -yet, extremely insightful- renderings.
.
Both good choices. And a darn good article, Mr Rodent ... :)
.
> Paraphrases can be dangerous because the writers can easily insert their own theologies. A carefully selected
> paraphrase might be useful for evangelism, but even new Christians are usually best served avoiding them.
.
Except that there's no getting around paraphrasing and other necessary editing; not even in the most literal translations. ... Learn the Koine, I say!
.
> Study Bibles are an additional consideration. The "Quest Study Bible" is excellent for new Believers. The "NIV
> Study Bible" is best for learning the history of Scripture itself. The king of Study Bibles, though, is the New
> Geneva Study Bible. It's a remarkable resource.
.
I'm sold! ... ummmm ... Will BroRat be kind enough to send this poor scholar a copy of this "remarkable resource" so that we need not feel so deprived already?!?
.
> Study Bibles use an existing translation - adding footnotes explaining many verses, with maps and articles
> on theological topics, and more lengthily prefaces to the "books". The DataRat
.
All of which is usually helpful, to be sure. But these study bibles also suffer from the limitations and preconceptions of the scholars and scribes who make them. As Butch says: "for they are laced with human inventions". -- tx
Re: in search of resources ...
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 17 Aug 1999 /
.
> solomon wrote: thanks for the advice datarat ... i've already read parts of the NIV study Bible ...
> and i'm actually looking for something more indepth, like a school of theology course.
.
tondaar say: The only thing I can suggest along those lines is to look into some bulky commentaries on whatever books you're interested in. The New Jerome Bible Commentary is quite good overall. The Anchor Bible series of commentaries is also worth consulting. As are the various commentaries by Calvin. If you have access to a good library you should be able to find any or all of these 'bible aids'. ... Of course, these resources must be used carefully and critically; and very foolish indeed is the bible student who believes all that is said in these (or any other) secondary literature.
.
> in the christian faith don't we or aren't we supposed to basically believe in the same thing?
.
Yes. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Everything else follows from this fundamental faith in the Son of Man. Beyond this, all beliefs, creeds, confessions, and theologies are secondary to the far more important fact that what separates True Believers from nominal Christians is the effort of discipleship. Both types of Christians say 'Lord, Lord' with their lips, but only True Believers demonstrate their faith in Christ by 'following Him' in all aspects of their daily walk through life. -- tx
/ Subject > An interesting discussion??? /
> On 5Dec99 Damon Martin sent an email to erasmian saying: Textman, I do hope this is you.
.
On 7Dec99 textman say: Dear Damon, it sure is! :)
.
> I got this email address off one of your posts at TOL. I just thought that you might want to take a
> look at something I found rather humorous. If you get a chance read Bob Cope's posts in the threads
> 'Re: Apparent Contradictions' under Stupid Bible Questions and 'Denominations' under Fellowship.
.
I saw them. They are interesting discussions to be sure. I do not enter therein because I don't do well with more than a few threads at any one time. Besides, you did a much better job with Mr Cope than I could. I have very little patience with those who think themselves much wiser than all dedicated scholars, and would never allow themselves to learn anything from such.
.
] BC sayeth: "Personally, I believe the Authorized King James is the infallible Word of God that was translated
] from divinely preserved infallible copies of the original manuscripts. Nothing you can say to me will cause me
] to change that belief. I believe God before I do you or any so called "scholar" that insists he has better
] information than I do."
.
For me, this says all I need to know in order to conclude that Bob is just the sort of believer who is very *not* worth talking to! Obviously this is someone who hasn't got the first clue as to what he's talking about.
.
> I'm not sure how often you check your email or the forums,
.
Not often enough, apparently. :)
.
> but I thought you had to read this.
.
Oh, absolutely. Thx. I would have surely missed them otherwise.
.
> I laughed, but I almost cried all at the same time. -- Damon
.
Me too. Such thick-headedness is both tragic and amusing. The obvious lesson to be learned from all this is that the willingness to learn from others is the first mark of one dedicated to the Truth.
.
"divinely preserved infallible copies of the original manuscripts" ... LOL - If they only knew! It is my belief that the papyrus fragment called P52 represents the sole surviving piece of all the NT autographs. It's importance and value is therefore beyond measure. One of the things we learn from it is that the original MS of John's gospel was written in haste, with passion and little concern for typos and spelling errors. These were subsequently corrected by careful scribes making copies from it; but the fact that the very first gospel of John was fairly riddled with textual errors is undeniable, and demonstrates the absurdity of those who spout off about the "infallible and inerrant original autographs"!
