This really depends on what version you go by. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is kateskhnwsen and it means “dwell or live.” I looked in my Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, and they have “lie down,” which comes from very ancient Hebrew scrolls. The Latin Vulgate has “adelinavit” which means “lay down.”
I thought the text of Psalm 23 to be misquoted myself, except that the NAB has several versions out there. I own the version that was available to buy in the 1980’s. After that they revised the translation of the psalms. If you go to a book store today and try to buy a copy of the NAB that has the older translation of the psalms, you could have a bit of trouble. The typical bookseller only caries the revised version. So I looked up the quote in the revised version that I have on the computer, and it checked out. The quote about grazing is there (in the new version).
I don’t know who you are railing against, but I think that the NAB calls church teaching into much more question than any of these folks. It denies the inerrancy of the Bible and affirms heresies such as a Maccabean date for Daniel and a pseudepigraphic author of II Peter. It’s remarkable that its notes have not been censured. (I don’t have a problem with the translation itself though I prefer the RSV or the Jerusalem Bible for text.)
Hiya Mike,
Thank you. Coincidentally, Daniel was the next book I was planning on doing.
I realise that the ESV and NASB do not include the Deutero-Canonical books but so what? Don’t let that stop you from getting and using one of these excellent versions. How often do you read the Deutero-Canonical books? If you need to have them then you can read them online, keep a Bible that includes them when you want to read them or purchase a separate copy of them. As far as footnotes go why do you need them? I find them obtrusive and too much of a “crutch” where we are more concerned about what they say rather than what the text says, remember the Scripture is inspired not the notes. All you need is a good translation with good cross-references, and a concordance. In Christ, jurist12
The reason Biblical Scholars use the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint is because they are of the consensus that the Masoretic text is the more accurate version with more ancient sources. While it is true that the Apostles may have, and the early church did use the Septuagint is the simple fact that most of the non-Jewish world used Greek as the “international” language of the day so in preaching the Gospel they used the Septuagint simply because it was in Greek not that it was “better” than the Jewish Masoretic text. The Septuagint is the Hebrew translated into Greek and to make an English translation from the Septuagint would be a translation of a translation. Also when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the Canonical Jewish books found were almost identical to the received Masoretic Text, which confirmed that the Masoretic text is the more accurate version. If I am wrong on this I am willing to be corrected, but that is what I was taught in college years ago unless things have changed. In Christ, jurist12.
I own an NASB, and I do like the translation. However, the commentary is by a dispensationalist, and thus quite obnoxious. Ignoring them is probably a good idea.
I haven’t read them all yet since my first Bible was Protestant and I’m afraid that my NAB has horribly distorted the words, however I plan on reading them as often as the rest of the Old Testament.