Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hi all,
It is a sterling character indeed, whom, having once given his/her loyalty to a religious system that claims to be THE sole channel of spiritual dispensation from God, then proceeds to translate or write a commentary in a totally unbiased way.

Can it be done?
Derek

Perhaps an atheist would be the most unbiased in translating?:giggle:
I read your comment about a certain 'Wilson' who may have biased his translation by his 'socian' or 'unitarian' renderings and it made me think about this too, Derek - who has absolutely no biases? I truly try not to have them, but the thing is, no matter who does the translating, so many passages may be rendered a number of ways according to the ancient meaning and/or within the context of modern terminology. The Bible is such a deep book, and each new depth requires deeper thinking and often more than one true meaning, layer upon layer... So maybe only an atheist with no agenda towards his own personal bend could acheive an unbiased tribute to, at least, the words as they've been perserved...? Just a thought in passing... lol.
I really do think we've been given all we need to reveal the true intent of our hearts, though - it doesn't take that much to uncover, hehe.:siskiss:

:peace:

Hi Derek;

Having been there and done that, I can swear and prove that the answer is no. In fact, that's the problem with all Bible translations and commentaries... when you start with a belief, your translating/commenting makes the answers easy. With Bibles; translating with a bias just proves what you've always believed to be true... and now the Bible says it too!

An atheist translating the Bible? That is also a belief, and the end result (through bias) would just prove the Bible foolish and untrue. What is needed is an honest person with an open mind, and they are extremely hard to find.

When Better Translation Helps

Table 2: Comparative Accuracies of English Versions
of the Old and New Testament

http://heraldmag.org/2009/09so_7.htm

Too bad the person who wrote this commentary isn't a Bible translator. The American Standard (with all its hundreds of known spurious verses and wrong translations) was listed BEST with an accuracy of more than 85. Surely if he did the translating it could have been 100%!

All this proves is that such commentaries are also very subjective and based on personal beliefs.

I AGREE!

So who is it that determines who is "reputable" Bible Translator?

ARE YOU?

I wish that every Christian was concerned enough about knowing the truth that they would translate the Bible, and then have gained the wisdom to realize that they still don't have all the answers.

Personally I'm not impressed by the linked page as it has its own biases and doesn't really give any hard hitting proofs of what the author is claiming to be "false" or wrong about certain translations. I admit it has some interesting and useful points, but I also must restate that it is somewhat biased. I've seen a similar publication possibly printed by the Dawn or another Bible Student group several years ago. It's like asking a JW to give one or two sentences explaining a list of five Bible verses. Perhaps this particular JW is a fine, upstanding, moral character, but there is no doubt that his/her explanations would be based entirely on what he/she learned by the Society.

Just my personal, biased, opinion. :blush: I'm not a translator and I've never played one on tv either. I laugh at those who attempt to translate the Word of God without even knowing how to read or write the original language in the first place.

EDIT: I should say that I don't know who Br. Parkinson is personally, so I could not honestly say he could be a translator or not.

With warm Christian love,
Stephen

I agree.
Dig in, get dirty, love the language.
Don't worry about going to college.
In weeks you will know and feel more than your average roaming Greek even in your fifties and sixties.

love vicky

Well all that grand-standing doesn't answer the question of who is it that is qualified to determine who is and who is not a "reputable" translator. I happen to prefer the Amplified(AMP) Bible translation/version, and yet I have been publicly excoriated for not having the right translation by some who consider themselves quasi-scholars on what constitutes the official Word of God. Personally, I still think in jw-speak as do many who are in kjv-speak, and find it important to examine varioius translations when there is doubt. As to Br Parkinson, I know him personally.

I don't believe a person with hardline biases that he/she is unable to relinquish can translate the Bible from its original languages without that bias coming through in the resulting "product."

AMP - I use it often. In regards to other Bible translations, my son has been a wonderful aid to assisting our family in understanding once again the old language inside the Christian Syriac Scriptures, although, as I said above, because of deep seeded background, translation can become bias at times and this he admits to. We still enjoy the American Standard Version for the Hebrew Scriptures, the World English Bible (an update to the ASV), the English translations of the Christian Syriac Scriptures by Murdock and Etheridge, with 'some' consulting of George M. Lamsa's translation of the Syriac "Old Testament" in English.

I still believe that one needs to have a very good command of the Biblical languages before he/she attempts to translate God's own spoken/written Word. Would any of us give medicine to your son or daughter if you could not read the label on the bottle and was unable to consult with anyone about it?

Instead of looking at a manuscript without a true knowledge of the language and saying, "I think it says this," "it appears to say this," and "it should say this instead" (based on personal religious beliefs), then let someone else do the translating. Bad translations are equivalent to bad medication. Dispensed improperly it can likely do more harm than good.

Warm Christian love,
Stephen

Why dont you guys read the Early Church Fathers for reliable commentary? They were much closer to the action because they were either taught by an Apostle or by a disciple of an Apostle.

There really is nothing new under the sun. If anyone comes up with a new understanding on a scripture it's usually wrong. Just look at the Mormons and Witnesses. Two perfect examples of men having a "new" understanding of scripture.

That's my two cents anyway,

I appreciate your insights Stephen.

I agree, but out of curiosity do you specifically mean "Western", "Eastern", Greek or Syriac Church Fathers or all of them?

Warm Christian love,
Stephen