History of Bible Translations - The Many Translations reflect the Number of Denominations...

[adf417]

History of Bible translations is this.

People thirsted for the Bible, then they invented the printing press, then they printed versions galore of the bible and people had 12 different versions in their library. Then because of over abundance people simply stopped reading it.

I do not follow this thought. I have an over abundance of clothes but i still wear clothes. Maybe not all my clothes but most of them.

Peace!!!

 

[BartholomewB]

“charitoo” is grace. Or favour.

“kecharitomene”, however is a whole different exercise. The most precise translation in English is:

“[O you who were] graced some time before and continue to remain graced till now”.

What we read here,

https://biblehub.com/text/luke/1-28.htm

in the column headed “Morphology,” is: Verb – Perfect Participle Middle or Passive – Vocative Feminine Singular.

For those of us, including me, who don’t know any Greek, it would be helpful, I think, if you could quote a few instances of other verbs that are found in the Bible – either the NT or the Septuagint – in the Perfect Participle Middle or Passive, Vocative. (It doesn’t matter about the Feminine and the Singular). That might help us to form a clearer idea of all the nuances involved in this particular form. Is that a practical possibility? Thank you.

 

[rightness]

Did one of you call in?

Tim Staples gives an answer to the question. I didn’t know that Saint John Paul II ordered the correction of the NAB.

 

[Darryl_B]

Clothes are a necessity not a luxury.

Comparisons are often easy to find, but rarely do they fit.

 

[adf417]

Clothes are a necessity not a luxury.

Comparisons are often easy to find, but rarely do they fit.

Are you suggesting that reading the bible is not a necessity? That seems opposite from your original assertion.

Peace!!!

 

[Darryl_B]

That is kind of twisting words a little, such is the beauty of our language that we can do that.

I will put it another way. Clothes are utilities.

When you make something over accessible as we have done with the Bible it becomes common.

That is I guess why we keep churning out new translations, so maybe the spark will revive.

 

[Hodos]

To me, given the syntax and grammar of the sentence, favored one or something in that light would be the most appropriate translation. The term “full of grace” seems to indicate that the grace or favor is inherent in the person, whereas “O favored one” or something in that light indicates the passive or middle tense of the participle being used in this case. The O favored one translation indicates that it is God bestowing his favor on the recipient, rather than the recipient bestowing favor on someone else or upon herself, and given the context of the conversation where Gabriel is revealing God’s will to Mary (something she did not expect or consider herself to have merited) this would be most in keeping with the tone of the passage as a whole.

 

[PJH_74]

“ecumenical” version of the RSV. Duoay-Rheims is public domain as well, and I think more accurate to doctrine than the KJV, obviously because protestants would translate things to favor themselves when they can.

In my experience NRSV update to the RSV is by far the favorite Bible translation amongst “Protestants” of all types, which in itself tries to be highly Ecumenical as you probably are aware.

As for types of Protestants, it serves to remember churches like the Lutherans and Anglicans have well developed theology with similar roots as Catholic theology. These churches aren’t fickle to the latest Biblical translation. For example, while the Lutherans (I believe Anglican also) reject things like transubstantiation they do teach real presence (aka Jesus is inside but no physical change). This is theology consistent since their splits from the Catholic Church.

 

[rightness]

In my experience NRSV update to the RSV is by far the favorite Bible translation amongst “Protestants” of all types, which in itself tries to be highly Ecumenical as you probably are aware.

As for types of Protestants, it serves to remember churches like the Lutherans and Anglicans have well developed theology with similar roots as Catholic theology. These churches aren’t fickle to the latest Biblical translation. For example, while the Lutherans (I believe Anglican also) reject things like transubstantiation they do teach real presence (aka Jesus is inside but no physical change). This is theology consistent since their splits from the Catholic Church.

Yeah, as I pointed out, the New RSV contains gender inclusion language, so instead of saying “men”, it’s “people” or something to that extent, and even the more widely used NIV is the same. It doesn’t seem to be a big deal on some text, but then more and more of these inclusive languages led to severe translation errors, and even the spirit of inclusive language affected the identity of God as Father.

Edit: One example, in Luke 1:27 in the RSV, Mary is betrothed to Joseph meaning they are married, but not consummated in Jewish terminology. In the NRSV, Mary is engaged to Joseph, which means they aren’t married yet. A critical mistake!

Did you know that the NSRV (and the NRAB) was approved by the Catholic Church, mostly through the hands of American Bishops (they are out of control! heh), but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rescinded their approval after a much needed review?

As many of us have said, English is such a poor language with it’s ability to mold into so many different things at the whim of the speaker or writer.

Oh, and Anglicans definitely reject Transubstantiation. In Article 28 of their 39 Articles instituted by Elizabeth I, they would say Transubstantiation cannot be proven by scripture, and it is repugnant and superstitious. Fortunately, thanks to Cardinal Newman and his buddies, the Oxford Movement sought to make Anglicans more Catholic, so many Anglicans, called “High Anglican Church” or Anglo-Catholics do believe in Transubstantiation. Anyway, Anglicans are a very wide spectrum of belief that it’s hard to pin them down on a certain set of beliefs.

 

[SeraficLeo]

So using the words “eternally” or “ever” is eisegesis: reading something into the text that the text doesn’t say.

But not necessarily. Sometimes the text (taken in its immediate context or as a whole) “builds up” words by connotation. The very word, “word,” takes on a whole lot of loaded meaning in the Bible, by usage and connotation. “God,” does too. So if an Englishman and Catholic were to say anything like someone was/is “En-word-ed” - not only would this obviously be a bizarre and special word in English, calling our attention; but even anyone trying to translate it (and knowing who had said it) might want to clue-in their reader that something rather profound is going on here.

All I mean to say is it’s a fine line between eisegesis and doing what Protestants sometimes
did (consciously or unconsciously) and completely and utterly hosing down a text: like translating ekklesia as “assembly” rather than Church.