Recent Effort to "Retranslate" the Bible.

Odale

Active Member
So, I was on the internets today and saw this. Here is said group's website (as badly as I do not want to link it, I will in the name of bias and balance).

Is it really necessary to make the Bible read more conservatively? In some instances they are fundamentally changing the words or eliminating them altogether.

Thoughts?
 

Patriot

Active Member
The Bible should be translated as it is using the words and context contained within. The translator's political leanings should not be imbued into the work. . .

This bugs me as much as a 'liberal' translation would.
 

Wolfeman

Member
Ever since the garden, satan has been retranslating and changing God's word. Why should he stop now when it works so well?
 

Kahiel

Active Member
The Bible should be translated as it is using the words and context contained within. The translator's political leanings should not be imbued into the work. . .

This bugs me as much as a 'liberal' translation would.
Exactly. The objective of biblical translation is to render the original Scriptures (as best as we can assemble them) into a different language as accurately and as understandable as possible. At least that's what it should be and is the goal of many of the contemporary English translations. People should read the Scriptures to find the mind of God, not to make the mind of God agree with themselves.

Ever since the garden, satan has been retranslating and changing God's word. Why should he stop now when it works so well?
Exactly. I would encourage all Christians to read the translations notes and forward to their Bible. Well, I would if Christians would read their Bible, as a pastor I have to recommend translations and get them reading them first.

Update:

Reading the article, I note that the article was written from quite the opposite political perspective as well.

This is why one should be educated about the Scriptures. Schlafly has a valid point on some of their "translational decisions" (ie. John 7:53-8:11 indeed is not in the earlier manuscripts, there are other reasons for still including it aside from political considerations) however, they make them for the wrong reason. The article devolves into reductio ad absurdum which weakens their article as well.
 
Last edited:

Niniel

Member
The examples sited in the article of "liberal" language in the Bible reveal the all-too-common tendency to (A) always take a person's words at face-value and never consider the motivations, intentions, and overall applications of what is being said, especially in political discussions; (B) understand the Bible based upon the reader's current culture only; and (C) view everything in life through a political lens. Utterly ridiculous.
 

Odale

Active Member
Niniel, I'd be lying if I said I understood what you meant (I'm also pretty tired right now). With regard to your first point, do you mean reading the Bible and interpreting it in a fashion that is consistent with the world as you see it? I guess like picking one verse and running with it as opposed to seeing a verse and reading the verses around it to get a larger picture of what's going on?

I'm just not sure what you're getting at (despite how simple the point seems, haha).

Update:

Reading the article, I note that the article was written from quite the opposite political perspective as well.

This is why one should be educated about the Scriptures. Schlafly has a valid point on some of their "translational decisions" (ie. John 7:53-8:11 indeed is not in the earlier manuscripts, there are other reasons for still including it aside from political considerations) however, they make them for the wrong reason. The article devolves into reductio ad absurdum which weakens their article as well.
That's why I included the URL for the group's website in addition to the article. While it could certainly weaken their argument in many respects (e.g., the message you take away from a portion of the Bible - grace vs. fear of God), I don't think it undermines the argument they make about why the other group should not be "retranslating" the Bible to be in accordance with political beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Tek7

CGA President, Tribe of Judah Founder & President
Staff member
Read the first sentence of article.

Found snarky tone.

Closed tab.

Found Kahiel already said what I wanted to say:
The objective of biblical translation is to render the original Scriptures (as best as we can assemble them) into a different language as accurately and as understandable as possible. At least that's what it should be and is the goal of many of the contemporary English translations. People should read the Scriptures to find the mind of God, not to make the mind of God agree with themselves.
 

Niniel

Member
Niniel, I'd be lying if I said I understood what you meant (I'm also pretty tired right now). With regard to your first point, do you mean reading the Bible and interpreting it in a fashion that is consistent with the world as you see it? I guess like picking one verse and running with it as opposed to seeing a verse and reading the verses around it to get a larger picture of what's going on?

I'm just not sure what you're getting at (despite how simple the point seems, haha).
Well, in regards to the first point, I was talking more generally about how people hear "key words" in conversations and immediately metaphorically cover their ears and start screaming "CAN'T HEAR YOU CAN'T HEAR YOU CAN'T HEAR YOU", like these "retranslaters" objecting to "liberal language" in the Bible. "BAD WORD! CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE."

Apologies for not being more clear. :)
 
Top