Which Translation

[JimmyH]

I cannot recall for sure, but I think it was D.A. Carson, in a youtube video, who pointed out that In the context of Isaiah 7:14 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.', if it is translated 'a young women', what kind of sign is that ? Young women bear sons not infrequently. For it to be a sign a virgin bearing a son is obvious
I do have an RSV, and an ESV, but not an NRSV. If, as it is attested by academia, the NRSV is the most accurate English translation, I figure the RSV must be pretty close. Personally I only use it for comparison with other versions.
The inclusive language issue bothered me, I'm going to be 68, Lord willing, in 3 days, and perhaps I'm set in my ways. I was very anti the inclusive language changes in the NIV, NRSV, ESV. Then I read D.A. Carson's 'The Inclusive Language Debate', and cannot disagree with his analysis. His chapter (3) called 'Translation is Treason' is a great read. Anyone interested in these controversies would benefit from reading the book, that chapter in particular.
N.T. Wright severely criticizes the NIV ('84) claiming inaccuracy in the translations of Paul's Epistles, particularly in Romans. About everything he objected to is corrected in the 2011 NIV. I can live with 'my children', or 'brothers and sisters' in the NIV11. Overall it is quite a good translation.
As far as the Critical Text, is it reasonable to assume that philologists and translators such as Westcott & Hort, and the many who have followed wouldn't have expertly and minutely examined the manuscript evidence ?
When I first began reading on the issue of English translations I saw so many attacks directed toward Westcott/Hort that I googled them. Multiple websites demonize them. I started reading Westcott's commentary on The Gospel of John, and Hort's separate volume on their New Testament translation.
Anyone who says Westcott was an unbeliever has never read him. They are parroting the 'party line.' Hort, in his 'Introduction To The New Testament In The Original Greek' says that for the vast majority of the NT the translator is just a transcriber. One eighth of the text has variations in spelling, punctuation, word order, but only one sixtieth of the text requires textual criticism. Read page 2 of the introduction here. https://archive.org/details/newtestamentinor82west

 

[hedrick]

The Reformed Confessions site passage of scripture that are no longer considered, "in the oldest or best MSS." That's kind of a big deal. That means we can't site scripture to answer disagrees because they might not, according to some future MSS find, be scripture. They could be errors.

Eastern Orthodox or Rome?

I like the incense better in Orthodoxy.

jm

This seems like a kind of weird argument for being Orthodox. If you want to forget scholarship there are Reformed places that do it too.

 

[hedrick]

I cannot recall for sure, but I think it was D.A. Carson, in a youtube video, who pointed out that In the context of Isaiah 7:14 'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.', if it is translated 'a young women', what kind of sign is that ? Young women bear sons not infrequently.

The sign was intended for Ahaz. Jesus’ birth doesn’t make any sense in that context. The sign isn’t just the birth of a child. The context is Isaiah’s prophecy about what was about to happen. The sign is that by the time that child becomes older*, the land of kings that Ahaz is afraid of will be deserted.

The Is commentary by Hans Wilderger says

“One should probably presume that this refers to a deportation. In the year 732, Damascus fell and did not rise again. Israel was able to come away from that only lightly scathed but, in any case, a large portion of its territory fell to the Assyrians in 732 and the population was quite decimated (2 Kings 15:29*) (cf. the annals of Tiglath-Pileser, lines 227–230, AOT2 347 = ANET2 283).”

Matthew, of course, applied the passage to Jesus. But Jews often saw the OT as a pattern that was reflected in their current time. Matthew didn’t make some kind of mistake in understanding Isaiah that way. He used it in a way that followed conventions of his time.

-----------------

* The age specification is a big vague, but it looks like Is 7:14 happened around 740 BCE, so the child would have been around 8 when Damascus fell.

 

[JM]

This seems like a kind of weird argument for being Orthodox. If you want to forget scholarship there are Reformed places that do it too.

Just being sarcastic and using hyperbole.

 

[JimmyH]

Just took a quick look at Keil & Delitzsch, MacArthur's study Bible, and D.A. Carson's study notes in the NIV study Bible and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible. All seem to see it as a prophecy of the coming Messiah. Particularly with 'Therefore His name shall be called Immanuel.' All three refer to chapter 9:6-7 as well, where there is no ambiguity, they say, as to the prophecy. I won't argue the point though I don't feel qualified to go beyond the aforementioned references. There are interesting threads on The Puritan Board on this issue. Some people see it as you do.