Hi everyone, I've been using the amplified bible a lot online and I'm really enjoying it. I'm finding myself a lot of times going "ooooh, that's what that scripture means." I'm considering buying myself a hard copy of the amplified but before I do (if I do) I was curious to what everyone here thinks of the amplified.
Amplified Bible?
- Thread starter GraceC
- Start date
Since I'm currently translating Isaiah 24, I'll take a moment to look at its translation and see what it does...or doesn't do...
Behold, the Lord will make the land and the earth empty and make it waste and turn it upside down (twist the face of it) and scatter abroad its inhabitants.
--Isaiah 24:1, AMP
First, I'm not sure why it translated the divine name (YHWH) as "the Lord." most translations render the divine name as LORD. "The Lord" is usually reserved for a completely different Hebrew word (ha-adon). Maybe the translation doesn't distinguish between the Name of God and his title?
Second, I have no idea why it renders the word "land" and the word "earth." There is a word for "land," which can also be translated "earth," but it only appears once. There are not two words, one meaning land and another meaning earth. This is truly bizarre. Maybe the editors couldn't decide which word to use and just decided to throw both in?
Third, the translation "make" is usually used of the Hiphil verbal stem, a causative form of verb, which does not appear in 24:1.
Fourth, the translation "empty" and "waste" has strong resonances with the creation account in Gen 1. That's kind of nice, but it doesn't really address the idea that God is stripping everything from the surface with violence. It has more to do with the idea of the Flood than Gen 1.
It also misses the opportunity to give an English rendering that echoes the poetic qualities of the Hebrew. To be honest, however, most translations miss that opportunity. But I wanted to point out that there's no reason why a translation should simply ignore something so purposely composed as we find here in this verse with the first two verbs. They sound very, very similar in Hebrew and were probably picked for that very reason. So if you can capture something that was purposely planned in the original, why not take advantage of it? I do (see below).
Fifth, I'm not really sure what the word "abroad" adds to the idea of scattering. There's certainly nothing in the Hebrew to warrant such a thing. It seems completely unnecessary.
Here's my translation:
Look, YHWH is desolating the earth and devastating it;
disfiguring its surface and scattering its inhabitants!
--Isaiah 24:1, the heavenly fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it shall be—as [what happens] with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the creditor, so with the debtor.
--Isaiah 24:2, AMP
First, why in the world is there an "And" at the beginning of the verse? I suppose, back in the olden days, when people didn't really understand the Hebrew construction, they thought it actually stood for a conjunction like "and." But nowdays, we know better. The waw at the start is a morphological marker, not a conjunction.
Second, the one instance of "amplification" here is totally and completely unnecessary. Why in the world add [what happens] to this verse when you just finished saying the same thing?????? The Hebrew word "It shall be" could also be translated "it will happen." They mean the same thing. You could also translate it "It will occur" or "It will come about." So why on earth give the same verb right after you already stated it the first time?
Third, I'm not really sure where the translation is getting all its "withs" from. "as with...so with." ???? There's no "with" anywhere in the text. There's no reason to read anything here as Dative. And there's no "sos" there either. The Hebrew construction we have is two nouns or two participles each beginning with a prepositional Kaph. This is a common grammatical construction that means "both X and Y."
Fourth, the final phrase, "as with the creditor, so with the debtor" completely misses the shift in structure. The Hebrew could have followed the same style in this last phrase as it did in the previous phrases, but it didn't. It completely changed things up. It broke with the previous structure in several different ways like including a relative clause. Yet that change is in no way reflected by the English of the Amplified Bible.
Here is my translation:
It will befall
both the people and the priest;
both the male slave and his master;
both the female slave and her mistress;
both the buyer and the seller;
both the lender and the lendee;
both the creditor and the one receiving credit through him.
--Isaiah 24:2, the heavenly fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The land and the earth shall be utterly laid waste and utterly pillaged; for the Lord has said this.
--Isaiah 24:3, AMP
First, again, we have the use of both the word earth and the word land, as if both of these words appeared in the Hebrew. Only one word appears in the Hebrew. I don't have any clue why they are doing this.
Second, again, we have the divine name used as a mere title "Lord."
Third, the phrase "the Lord has said this" actually leaves out part of the biblical text!!! It is not merely "said this" but "said this thing" or "said this word." There is more of an object to the verb than "this." Instead of an AMPLIFIED Bible, what we really have is a SIMPLIFIED Bible where words have been left out! I would have expected the Amplified Bible to take the phrase "this thing" or "this word" and expand on it...not subtract from it!
Here's my translation:
The earth will be utterly desolate and utterly despoiled
because YHWH has spoken this word.
--Isaiah 24:3, the heavenly fire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: the Amplified Bible does not strike me as a Bible that knows much about the Hebrew text or cares much about it. Is that the kind of translation you want?
Upvote
0
OzSpen
Regular Member
- Oct 15, 2005
- 11,541
- 707
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
I find the Amplified Bible to be a 'complicated Bible' because it attempts to do too much in a translation. It tries to combine a regular translation with very brief word studies. Since I read NT Greek, I'm able to access Greek lexicons and other Greek word studies (like Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) to obtain this information.
I'd recommend that you use a number of committee translations (not individual paraphrases) to obtain a comparison of the different shades of meaning of a word. These various translations are available online at places such as biblegateway. I'd use NASB, ESV, NRSV, NKJV, NLT as starters.
I don't know how old you are or how you are placed to do some study of the original languages. If I had my Christian life over again, I would start my study of both Hebrew and NT Greek as young as possible. But we can study these languages at any stage of our Christian lives. If you were interested in studying original languages of the Bible, would you have a nearby college/seminary where you could study Greek and Hebrew?
I find it best to study a foreign language in a class setting where I can speak the language and talk over points of grammar in class or out of class. I would have been up the creek if it were not for the in-class interaction I had with my very first Greek course under Dr Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC (even though I'm an Aussie - I was living in BC, Canada at the time).
These are just some thoughts from a fellow Christian traveller.
In Christ,
Oz
Upvote
0
HIM_In_Me_In_HIM
Angel Of YHVH
while I agree "in merit/accuracy" with my above two post-bro's
I still commend u GC (OP) for reading any decent translation.
For it seems to me, if u are sincere, H>S> will work with u on this regard in using Amp-bible either "miraculously" or by whetting your appetite for more/better understanding based on the greek & Hebrew. u can go to biblos.com & find there some tools to help u in your studies.
That's a key word too; studies. For many (incl me, on occasion) don't always STUDY as they should yet rather glance/breeze thru
their reading, as it were. I prefer the NLV when I "breeze" thru.
Yet, I often ck up on any interests with the greek & Hebrew tools at www.blblos.com
Shalom.
Upvote
0
graceandpeace
Episcopalian
As another poster mentioned, I think the AMP tries to accomplish too much. I have only read bits & pieces I admit, but that was enough to leave me feeling confused. I really don't like it.
Upvote
0
HIM_In_Me_In_HIM
Angel Of YHVH
HimiH alone (as u are trying to separate...) doesn't but I, H>S> do, yids/yods/jots/tittles, no problem.
As HimiH originally stated, I do "work miraculously" with all translations (on occasion) on a case by case basis.
Yet I do appreciate the due diligence some believers apply to their studies and, often bless richly those that put in the extra effort Hebrew and Greek "perseverance" affords them.
Shalom Aleichem
Upvote
0
Similar threads
