Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Archive for the ‘Bible Translation’ Category

March 6th, 2012 by Joel

More from the Zondervan and Thomas Nelson merger – The MacArthur NIV Study Bible

You know how I feel about Christian publishing houses as ruled by Murdoch, especially when you consider that 50% of the Christian publishing market is essentially controlled by Murdoch. Anyway… It seems that John MacArther will not added his notes to an NIV Study Bible:

The project has been in the discussion and planning phase for more than a year now, said Chip Brown, Zondervan’s senior vice-president and publisher of bibles. Under the deal, Zondervan will license the NIV translation to Thomas Nelson, which will publish the bible, expected to be released in fall 2013.

How Zondervan struck a deal with rival Thomas Nelson to combine Christian bestsellers | MLive.com.

I like the NIV – THE NLT IS FAR BETTER – but not so much a fan of some of MacArthur’s stances.

We’ll see how it goes…

(ht to LNB via Twitter)

January 19th, 2012 by Joel

Did Jacob give God the smack down?

Even some translators of the text have problems with the fact that God appeared as a human being and lost the struggle to Jacob. Thus, some translations avoid making this point. Take for example the Douay-Rheims, which is a very literal translation of the Latin Vulgate.

via What Happens When God Loses? | Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament.

Looks like it… good stuff… Oh the things we miss when we don’t know how to actually even read the Text….

Psst… Tony… I’m linking to you a lot that way you don’t have to an search through all my blog posts in order to take them out of context…

December 29th, 2011 by Joel

(My) Top, er, Only Ten, er, Five Bible Translations of 2011

It’s the end of the year, so it’s time for the Top 10 lists…

  1. The NLT is still my translation for bible reading
  2. The NASB I use for a formal papers…
  3. Unless I need to use the Septuagint, which I find myself using the NETS. It, in my opinion, has the best canon.
  4. Coming up on the usage list is the New American Bible which includes the Deuterocanon and is a solid translation.
  5. The Revised English Version is still a favorite, but I wish I could find it online for Olive Tree or Kindle.

The Common English Bible, which is being heavily promoted – YOU COULD LEARN FROM THIS TYNDALE HOUSE AND IF YOU NEED HELP WITH THIS, YOU SHOULD LET ME KNOW – is just not one that I’ve grown to use. I have it on Kindle, with the Deuterocanon, but frankly, it is just another in the plethora of translations. The Revised Standard is good, and in my opinion, better than the NRSV, but, I prefer the NAB and the NASB if I am using an English translation for formal study. The ESV is, well, you know… and the HCSB is okay, but fits with the above description of the CEB.

December 13th, 2011 by Joel

Maybe the ESV was just a marketing ploy after all?

I am free to make such statements because I do not review for Crossway… shucks, I would be honest anyway. The ESV is, in my opinion, a needless translation only because a few Evangelicals decided that they couldn’t hand the RSV and didn’t want the KJV. It is, in my opinion, a marketing ploy… but with that said, I do like the ESV Study Bible.

Are you aware that the ESV continues to evolve? When will it grow up? I was sent the link below by a friend today and it troubles me. The document lists nearly 300 changes and this group is only one in a series of revisions that have appeared (quietly) since its publication over a decade ago.

DrIBEX Ideas / When Will the ESV Cease Evolving?.

More at the link.

Now, maybe this doesn’t bother anyone, but with all the time which John Piper spends glorifying the ESV, one would think that it was already the perfect translation?

December 6th, 2011 by Joel

There goes the Aussie Catholics… using the ESV? Pish Posh

However, we struck problems with the copyright holders of the NRSV and have had some difficulties in our dealings with the Holy See. All of this so becalmed the project that there is now no hope that the Lectionary or any part of it will appear at the same time as the Missal. In fact, we have decided to move away from the NRSV and to prepare the Lectionary using a modified form of the English Standard Version (ESV), still with the revised Grail Psalter. (here) (HT)

Really? The Evangelical Standard Version? Oh come on!

August 25th, 2011 by Joel

Eugene Nida dies

Dr. Nida, through his work, helped me to understand a great deal about translations and the such. Godspeed.

Eugene Nida, the giant of Bible translation in the twentieth century, died in hospital in Brussels on August 25. He was 96. Conveying the news, his widow Elena said, “My adored husband has passed away 10 minutes ago. Thank you for your prayers. He was a saint. The Lord is with him.”

For more than 50 years Eugene Nida was the leader of the translation program of the American Bible Society, and subsequently the intellectual leader of the global program of the United Bible Societies, as well as consultant to that organisation.

Dr Nida will be best remembered for the revolution he brought about in the field of Bible translation in the mid-twentieth century. The resulting impact on the growth and development of the Church continues to be felt as millions of people in hundreds of languages around the world have access to the Bible because of the approach he developed and promoted.

Using concepts from linguistics, cultural studies, communication sciences and psychology, Nida developed a practical approach to translation he called dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence, the goal of which was to make the translation clear and understandable as well as accurate. He also influenced the emerging field of modern translation studies and is generally acknowledged as having set in motion the developments that led to that discipline. Through his numerous books and publications and extraordinary lecture schedule, he was able to help scholars, translators and specialists in Christian missions find new ways to think about effective communication.

Eugene Nida dies | United Bible Societies.

Enhanced by Zemanta

August 5th, 2011 by Joel

Please “Like” the NLT Study Bible Page on Facebook

I like it. You like it. So, if you don’t mind, for those of you on Facebook, please “like” this page. And for those of you who aren’t, go ahead and sign up for Facebook so that you can “like” it now.

The NLT Study bible is chocked full of good stuff. And, it wins, so far in the Study Bible Wars.

Also, you can “friend” me on facebook here.

July 11th, 2011 by Joel

The Study Bible Wars: NLT 1, ESV 0

ESV Study Bible Hardcover Cover

Image via Wikipedia

I wanted to highlight just a few things about the NLT Study Bible and the ESV Study Bible as a point of comparison. This post is not meant to be all incluvise or even a review.

In Genesis 1.26, the NLT Study Bible reads,

Let us make is more personal than the remote “Let there be” (e.g., 1.36). The plural us has inspired several explanations:

  1. the Trinity;
  2. the plural to denote majesty;
  3. a plural to show deliberation with the self; and
  4. God speaking with his heavenly court of angels

The editors answer these objections, and I’ll skip most of what they say. No doubt the editors, translators and others who worked on the NLT Study Bible, the scholars anyway, are devout ‘orthodox’ Christians believing in the Trinity. Yet here, they allow for a more scholastic approach which keeps the integrity of the passage free from later dogmatization. They note, “The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exists eternally in three distinct persons – was revealed at a later stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here.” They conclude the note by stating that option 4 is the the most likely answer. And indeed, it is. This is the position of ancient Jewish interpreters as well, as demonstrated in the Jewish Study Bible.

The ESV Study Bible notes that the “text does not specify the identify of the “us” mentioned here.” Ahh… the false notion of Scripture interpreting Scripture. A starting point for the interpretation of Scripture cannot be Scripture, as it allows for circular logical to act as the foundation of the loudest voice being right. The ESV Study Bible Editors goes on to note what the NLT Study Bible does, that the ‘us’ (as it is in other places in the OT) is the heavenly court. Yet, they end by stating,  “Many Christians and some Jews have taken “us” to be God speaking to himself, since God alone does the making in Genesis. 1.27 (cf 5.1); this would be the first hint of the Trinity in the Bible (cf. 1.2).”

But it’s not. It is actually the heavenly court which was the understanding of the people who first read this passage. While it is easy for us to sit here today and reread the original works, the Scriptures were not created in a vacuum. The writers used the lexicons and encyclopedias of the day so that those who heard them then would understand the meaning of the text. How arrogant of us to think that the people for whom it was written didn’t understand it, and yet, we do.

Overall, I like the ESV Study Bible notes, but in several areas, the NLT Study Bible remains intellectually honest.

Enhanced by Zemanta

June 29th, 2011 by Joel

A Sample Review: NLT Parallel Study Bible Sampler

Click to Pre-Order

Thanks to Adam for this Sampler. The entire bible is due on August 1.

As a fan of the NLT and more, the NLT Study Bible, I was interested to note that Tyndale will now produce the NLT Study Bible’s notes along side the notes of the Life Application series. I find that while the NLT Study Bible’s notes are more conservative than something like the New Oxford Annotated Bible, they are still filled with integrity. For example look at the notes for Genesis 1.26 and Isaiah 7.14. When you can be honest about these verses, I find that the rest of the study notes are to be respected as well. The Life Application series has been around for a little while and is attached to various translations. This system of notes is meant for a more broadly based daily use with the goal of helping the Christian to apply Scriptural teachings to their own lives.

So what’s the reason you should but this bible and there by replace both your already purchased Study Bible and Life Application Bible? For starters, there is the parallel feature. The translation is single column, at the top of the page. Below the ‘fold’, in parallel columns, the editors have placed the notes attached to each bible. Instead of taking two bibles, or rather, having to chose between the two, you can now enjoy both of them at the same time. You can fill up your scholastic need as well as your devotional need!

The sampler only includes Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, so the features may change.

One of these features are short studies on the book of Romans. Seven, actually. They cover a variety of theological topics which are meant for small groups or individuals. There are not overly in depth, but these studies will get you more than familiar with the particular book and some of the current theological thinking regarding them.

The problem with bibles like these is the question, “Do I really need another one?” I think that some of us live in a false dichotomy that critical studies (even of the evangelical variety) must be separated from devotional or theological living. A bible like this helps to show that the separation isn’t that wide and can be somewhat welded together. For those who like their devotional readings mixed with conservative critical studies, I think that the answer to the above question is “Yes, you do need this bible.” Plus, it gives you a reason to remark your bible up (shivers) and cross reference between study and life.

June 15th, 2011 by Joel

Southern Baptists Decry NIV 2011

As an ardent supporter of the NLT – I’ve never read the NIV 2011. No need too. :) But this was a bit surprising.

In a surprising and dramatic move moments ago, messengers voted first to consider a resolution highly critical of the TNIV 2011 and then passed the resolution nearly unanimously. The resolution came from the floor — introduced by messenger Tim Overton — and not from the Resolutions Committee. Overturn’s appeal for messengers to consider the resolution passed by at least a 2-to-1 margin, and the resolution itself got only a handful of opposing votes. The Resolutions Committee had asked messengers not to consider the resolution.

Enhanced by Zemanta