Bible versions

[~Anastasia~]

To me the difference in translation is focus, not implications. That is, if we're a sinner from the beginning, then there's clearly something that makes us that way. But the passage isn't about the origin of sin, even though it surely must have an origin. It's a confession, so what the passage talks about is that the author was a sinner from the beginning, not his mother's role in passing it on to him. The other implication is that we can't cite the passage as supporting any particular theory for how one becomes a sinner. Even in the AV it's not explicit enough to specify such a theory, but it's certainly been used that way.

You do make some very good points.

It just seems to me that the other translation does indeed try to advance a particular theory, so it becomes even more of concern when that isn't the actual intent of the passage overall.

 

[Cappadocious]

I think the numbering difference is whether you assign verse numbers to title and ascription.

The translational difference doesn't always reflect a difference in exegesis. The original assertion was that NRSV was significantly different from RSV (and KJV). But that's only the case if you adopt a certain exegesis.

AV says

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceivea me.”

What does that mean? Does it mean that you inherit sin from your mother? Or worse, that your conception by your mother was actually sin? It certainly could. Both interpretations have been held. That translation pushes the most in that direction. ESV and RSV say:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

That still suggests the same meaning as the AV, but I think it’s a bit less explicit. Yet Anastasia thinks it implies the EO interpretation, which is that we’re brought into a world of sin.

NRSV and several other modern translations say

“Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.”

The implication here is that the individual has been a sinner from the beginning. It doesn’t actually say whether it’s inherited or not. The focus isn’t on where sin came from, as I think AV suggests, but the fact that the author was sinful from the beginning.

One of the arguments for the NRSV understanding is that the context is a confession of sin. Saying that it came from your mother is kind of shifting the blame. In context it makes a lot more sense to follow “my sin is ever with me” with “and I was a sinner from the beginning.” Where sin comes from is not germane to that prayer.

I'll do another check tomorrow to see if I have any information on history. The big surprise to me is that Calvin actually had the same understanding as the NRSV. But that's the only historical commentator I have.

Simply, being born guilty is not the same as being born sinful or in a sinful world or in sin. What it comes down to is that these are simply not equivalent, even if some theology demands that one entails the other.

Furthermore in English sinner implies a sort of agency that sinful, sin, etc. Does not.

 

[hedrick]

Simply, being born guilty is not the same as being born sinful or in a sinful world or in sin. What it comes down to is that these are simply not equivalent, even if some theology demands that one entails the other.

Furthermore in English sinner implies a sort of agency that sinful, sin, etc. Does not.

Right. “guilty” could have an implication that the commentators don’t suggest was actually there. “I was a sinner from the beginning” is probably the meaning. This was a confession, not a doctrinal dissertation. I doubt that the author meant that he committed a culpable action one millisecond after birth, or had a specific idea in mind of inheriting guilt from his parents. It was just a realization that he was sinful for his whole life.

Even Calvin didn’t think we inherited actual guilt. He believed we were born sinners, in the sense of being the kind of people who sin. (He used words like “corruption,” of course.)

I think any possible wording could be a problem if you go out of the context and try to turn the wording into a literal account of the origin of sin.

But I'm guessing most people who think NRSV mistranslated and AV got it right aren't objecting to NRSV because it could imply inherited guilt.

 

[StanJ]

So I was curious about a few things;

1. What is your go-to Bible and why?
2. Do you use multiple versions for a) general use or b) study purposes?
3. Do you feel particular versions fit or accommodate particular denominations better than others? If so, which ones and why?
4. Do you feel a particular version accommodates your own beliefs better than others? If so, which one and why?
5. Are there any versions you would vehemently discourage the use of and why?
6. In your opinion, what do you believe to be the most accurate version to date and why?

I don't have answers or speculations for questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, but my answers for 1 and 2 are as follows;
1 -- ESV. I started out with KJV but ultimately found that despite KJV being beautiful in its own way, the ESV enabled me to understand better and it was generally a more enjoyable and easy going experience.
Not to say the acquisition of knowledge, particularly Biblical knowledge, should be easy, but the KJV was a little taxing and I was glad to change over to the ESV.
2 -- Before I changed over to ESV from KJV, I'd often times read the same verse in the ESV to try and understand it better if it was particularly difficult to understand without labouring too much over it. My current study Bible is an ESV as well.

1. NIV 2011
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Not vehemently.
6. NIV - because it uses my vernacular. I also like the NET.

The following may be of interest to those who know who Daniel Wallace is.
https://bible.org/article/net-niv-esv-brief-historical-comparison

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Right. “guilty” could have an implication that the commentators don’t suggest was actually there. “I was a sinner from the beginning” is probably the meaning. This was a confession, not a doctrinal dissertation. I doubt that the author meant that he committed a culpable action one millisecond after birth, or had a specific idea in mind of inheriting guilt from his parents. It was just a realization that he was sinful for his whole life.

Even Calvin didn’t think we inherited actual guilt. He believed we were born sinners, in the sense of being the kind of people who sin. (He used words like “corruption,” of course.)

I think any possible wording could be a problem if you go out of the context and try to turn the wording into a literal account of the origin of sin.

But I'm guessing most people who think NRSV mistranslated and AV got it right aren't objecting to NRSV because it could imply inherited guilt.

Hedrick, in the context of "the sins of the fathers"

Exodus 20:5English Standard Version (ESV)
5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

 

[hedrick]

I don't doubt that sin (or more precisely, the tendency to sin) is contagious, both within families and communities, or that the OT makes this point. I just doubt that that's what Ps 51 meant.

Ex 20:4, may not be being making that precise point either:
"punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"
(NRSV, but NIV and Holman are the same.)

Of course one assumes that if the children repent of their parents sins, they wouldn't be punished. But this passage isn't making a specific point about how sin is transmitted either.

I'm surprised that ESV would use visit. The meaning is obsolete, and thus open to misunderstanding by the read. It seems to mean something like punish. Dictionary.com says it means to inflict punishment. NJKV, which is stuck with AV language, notes that in a footnote. NET says: "But it may also indicate that the effects of the sins of the fathers will be experienced in the following generations, especially in the case of Israel as a national entity." This is clearly an OT concept. Sin, if not dealt with, remains a problem for the community. E.g. when someone is murdered, their blood cries out if justice hasn't been done.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't doubt that sin (or more precisely, the tendency to sin) is contagious, both within families and communities, or that the OT makes this point. I just doubt that that's what Ps 51 meant.

Ex 20:4, may not be being making that precise point either:
"punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"
(NRSV, but NIV and Holman are the same.)

Of course one assumes that if the children repent of their parents sins, they wouldn't be punished. But this passage isn't making a specific point about how sin is transmitted either.

I'm surprised that ESV would use visit. The meaning is obsolete, and thus open to misunderstanding by the read. It seems to mean something like punish. Dictionary.com says it means to inflict punishment. NJKV, which is stuck with AV language, notes that in a footnote. NET says: "But it may also indicate that the effects of the sins of the fathers will be experienced in the following generations, especially in the case of Israel as a national entity." This is clearly an OT concept. Sin, if not dealt with, remains a problem for the community. E.g. when someone is murdered, their blood cries out if justice hasn't been done.

We Lutherans often talk about the "stain" of original sin. The theology of these parts of Scripture are tied to original sin. Certainly, if we children repent, we are forgiven; but just as a new-born commits no sin; neither can they repent; which is why my Chruch and many other older Churches practice infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins. God never leaves one desolate; while the law and original sin condemns us; there is always a source or a means of grace provided for us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I used to wonder about Ex. 20:4, because it seemed "unfair". Not that I can judge God, but I have found that things that "seem wrong" in interpretations I was given are nearly always interpretations that are not consistent with the early Church. At any rate, I was never able to simply brush things aside. I wanted to understand.

But now I do think it has more to do with effects of sin. That carries both sideways affecting other people and down through generations.

There's also a Scripture that says specifically that each soul is responsible for its own sin, and that God does NOT punish one on account of another (I think it mentions fathers and sons). I'll see if I can find it, but you may know which one I mean?


ETA: Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We Lutherans often talk about the "stain" of original sin. The theology of these parts of Scripture are tied to original sin. Certainly, if we children repent, we are forgiven; but just as a new-born commits no sin; neither can they repent; which is why my Chruch and many other older Churches practice infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins. God never leaves one desolate; while the law and original sin condemns us; there is always a source or a means of grace provided for us.

What does Lutheranism teach about babies who die unbaptized? Or babies who die by miscarriage?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What does Lutheranism teach about babies who die unbaptized? Or babies who die by miscarriage?

We trust in God's great and infinite mercy. Any more than that would be pure speculation on our part.

I used to wonder about Ex. 20:4, because it seemed "unfair". Not that I can judge God, but I have found that things that "seem wrong" in interpretations I was given are nearly always interpretations that are not consistent with the early Church. At any rate, I was never able to simply brush things aside. I wanted to understand.

But now I do think it has more to do with effects of sin. That carries both sideways affecting other people and down through generations.

There's also a Scripture that says specifically that each soul is responsible for its own sin, and that God does NOT punish one on account of another (I think it mentions fathers and sons). I'll see if I can find it, but you may know which one I mean?


ETA: Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

It is the consequences of sin or as you say the effects of sin. Aging, suffering in this life, illness, wars, natural disasters, etc. These things are "visited" upon us and will be until the last day.

To stay on topic, the different translations can lead to different understandings.

<snip>

I'm surprised that ESV would use visit. The meaning is obsolete, and thus open to misunderstanding by the read. It seems to mean something like punish. Dictionary.com says it means to inflict punishment. NJKV, which is stuck with AV language, notes that in a footnote. NET says: "But it may also indicate that the effects of the sins of the fathers will be experienced in the following generations, especially in the case of Israel as a national entity." This is clearly an OT concept. Sin, if not dealt with, remains a problem for the community. E.g. when someone is murdered, their blood cries out if justice hasn't been done.

Visited in this sense seems to be a good word, because the consequences are in that sense.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We trust in God's great and infinite mercy. Any more than that would be pure speculation on our part.


It is the consequences of sin or as you say the effects of sin. Aging, suffering in this life, illness, wars, natural disasters, etc. These things are "visited" upon us and will be until the last day.

To stay on topic, the different translations can lead to different understandings.



Visited in this sense seems to be a good word, because the consequences are in that sense.

Thanks, Mark.

That would be essentially what the Orthodox would say. I was curious if you'd end up a different place, since the foundational assumptions seem a little different. Yet in the end, we'd give the same answer, it seems.

 

[Korah]

I'm surprised that ESV would use visit. The meaning is obsolete, and thus open to misunderstanding by the read. It seems to mean something like punish.

The English Standard Version has a policy of translating the same original word with the same English word. So that Hebrew word is elsewhere also translated as "visit". It must work best that way.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is your go-to Bible and why?

For me it is important to study the Bible in the original language so I use the Strong's and the Blue Letter to look up the verses where the original word is used. I use to keep a copy of the Bible on my computer, now it is easier to use the Bible on line. With the power of the computer we should understand the Bible better now then ever.

http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html
https://www.blueletterbible.org/