- Oct 19, 2014
- 34
- 18
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
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
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
Upvote
0