4 ms·

A translation is basically offloading all that to a team of scholars. Other religious books may have been standardized so you can't compare different versions,

A translation is basically offloading all that to a team of scholars. Other religious books may have been standardized so you can't compare different versions, but that does not diminish the versions studied today.

ars 7y ago
> A translation is basically offloading all that to a team of scholars. Those same scholars would say the same thing: You can not understand the original intent from a single translation. (For example some words have multiple meanings, and all the meanings are intended.) Translations have different purposes, some are intended for smooth reading, or poetic language, or literal direct translation (never mind if it's hard to understand), or easy comprehension. And ALL of them are valuable! If you have a specific need, pick the translation that matches your need. But, for study, to really understand the material you need more than one, and in particular you need notes and explanation.
- steve19 7y ago
  Of course, but no theologians are telling laypeople to learn Greek, ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and vulgar Latin before reading a translation in their first language! Or at least not since post counter reformation.
jorangreef 7y ago
"A translation is basically offloading all that to a team of scholars." Especially a brilliant translation like the ESV. For example, Peter J. Williams (https://www.crossway.org/authors/peter-j-williams/ https://www.crossway.org/authors/peter-j-williams/) is just one of the PHDs who worked on the ESV Translation Oversight Committee. I once listened to a talk Peter gave at St Helens' Bishopsgate (https://www.st-helens.org.uk/resources/talk/51892/audio/ https://www.st-helens.org.uk/resources/talk/51892/audio/) on how translating has improved his confidence in the textual reliability of the manuscripts. I've never heard someone speak so well before. It's true that reading more than one translation helps, but I find that even just reading a formal equivalence translation such as the ESV, together with a dynamic equivalence transalation such as the old NIV, will get you 98% of the way there, and there are commentaries to help with the rest. It would be a real shame to never read the Bible in your mother tongue, when so many translators have sacrificed so much to make that possible, simply because one feels it can't be understood unless "you read it in a 100 languages". I think the question then becomes, well, do I want to read and truly understand, am I open-minded or am I just filibustering?
- bluGill 7y ago
  Best is reading the originals directly. As I recall the bible is written in 5 languages, so learn those 5 to fluency and read that. Since most of us don't have the time to learn 5 languages well enough to understand subtle details we rely on translations.
  - speeder 7y ago
    Problem is... we DON'T have the originals. Something few people know: The greek translation of the old testament, might be more accurate than the hebrew version. The reason is that the complete hebrew version we have (I mean, ignoring fragments found in archeological digs recently), was written about 700 years after Jesus, by a group of people that were strongly biased against the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, also their version has explicit editor notes, and commentary, and obvious errors (for example "alphabetic" psalms that are missing letters, while the greek translation still have them). Some of my favourite translations are ones that did research to find what was probably closest to originals, instead of reliance on the language of manuscripts, there are even some ethiopian texts (in ethiopian language!) that are reputed to be more reliable than more recent texts that are supposed to be copies of originals in original language.
    - jorangreef 7y ago
      "Problem is... we DON'T have the originals." That's a common misunderstanding of textual criticism, when it comes to the Bible, often peddled by pop-scholars writing for the masses, who make out that the sheer number of minor textual variants is a major stumbling block in getting back to the original text. On the contrary, the more copies you have, the better. It's the same with Google, you hope they make thousands of backups, and at different points in time. With textual criticism, you don't need the originals if you have thousands of copies to compare, in different languages. Likewise with ancient history, you don't need to have been there, to know that an event happened in the past. I would encourage you to read people like Bruce M. Metzger, F.F. Bruce, or Paul Barnett if you want to understand the logic of ancient history and textual criticism, or if you want to balance your perspective.
irrational 7y ago
A team of scholars who have a (perhaps unconscious) doctrinal bent that influences their translation. If a word can be translated 10 different ways into English, of course you are going to choose the English word that matches your concept of doctrine. This is inevitable. By reading many different translations from scholars from different belief systems (catholic, protestant, orthodox, restoration, etc.) you will get a more rounded sense of possible meanings.

ars 7y ago

> A translation is basically offloading all that to a team of scholars. Those same scholars would say the same thing: You can not understand the original intent from a single translation. (For example some words have multiple meanings, and all the meanings are intended.) Translations have different purposes, some are intended for smooth reading, or poetic language, or literal direct translation (never mind if it's hard to understand), or easy comprehension. And ALL of them are valuable! If you have a specific need, pick the translation that matches your need. But, for study, to really understand the material you need more than one, and in particular you need notes and explanation.

steve19 7y ago
Of course, but no theologians are telling laypeople to learn Greek, ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and vulgar Latin before reading a translation in their first language! Or at least not since post counter reformation.

jorangreef 7y ago

"A translation is basically offloading all that to a team of scholars." Especially a brilliant translation like the ESV. For example, Peter J. Williams (https://www.crossway.org/authors/peter-j-williams/ https://www.crossway.org/authors/peter-j-williams/) is just one of the PHDs who worked on the ESV Translation Oversight Committee. I once listened to a talk Peter gave at St Helens' Bishopsgate (https://www.st-helens.org.uk/resources/talk/51892/audio/ https://www.st-helens.org.uk/resources/talk/51892/audio/) on how translating has improved his confidence in the textual reliability of the manuscripts. I've never heard someone speak so well before. It's true that reading more than one translation helps, but I find that even just reading a formal equivalence translation such as the ESV, together with a dynamic equivalence transalation such as the old NIV, will get you 98% of the way there, and there are commentaries to help with the rest. It would be a real shame to never read the Bible in your mother tongue, when so many translators have sacrificed so much to make that possible, simply because one feels it can't be understood unless "you read it in a 100 languages". I think the question then becomes, well, do I want to read and truly understand, am I open-minded or am I just filibustering?

bluGill 7y ago
Best is reading the originals directly. As I recall the bible is written in 5 languages, so learn those 5 to fluency and read that. Since most of us don't have the time to learn 5 languages well enough to understand subtle details we rely on translations.
- speeder 7y ago
  Problem is... we DON'T have the originals. Something few people know: The greek translation of the old testament, might be more accurate than the hebrew version. The reason is that the complete hebrew version we have (I mean, ignoring fragments found in archeological digs recently), was written about 700 years after Jesus, by a group of people that were strongly biased against the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, also their version has explicit editor notes, and commentary, and obvious errors (for example "alphabetic" psalms that are missing letters, while the greek translation still have them). Some of my favourite translations are ones that did research to find what was probably closest to originals, instead of reliance on the language of manuscripts, there are even some ethiopian texts (in ethiopian language!) that are reputed to be more reliable than more recent texts that are supposed to be copies of originals in original language.
  - jorangreef 7y ago
    "Problem is... we DON'T have the originals." That's a common misunderstanding of textual criticism, when it comes to the Bible, often peddled by pop-scholars writing for the masses, who make out that the sheer number of minor textual variants is a major stumbling block in getting back to the original text. On the contrary, the more copies you have, the better. It's the same with Google, you hope they make thousands of backups, and at different points in time. With textual criticism, you don't need the originals if you have thousands of copies to compare, in different languages. Likewise with ancient history, you don't need to have been there, to know that an event happened in the past. I would encourage you to read people like Bruce M. Metzger, F.F. Bruce, or Paul Barnett if you want to understand the logic of ancient history and textual criticism, or if you want to balance your perspective.

irrational 7y ago

A team of scholars who have a (perhaps unconscious) doctrinal bent that influences their translation. If a word can be translated 10 different ways into English, of course you are going to choose the English word that matches your concept of doctrine. This is inevitable. By reading many different translations from scholars from different belief systems (catholic, protestant, orthodox, restoration, etc.) you will get a more rounded sense of possible meanings.