I'm a purist. I think we should be as thorough and accurate as possible regarding certain important matters. So it is no surprise that I think that a translation of the Bible should be as accurate as possible. Here is another example that warns us to be careful when choosing a translation. This one involves The New Living Translation. From my understanding, it is a translation and not a paraphrase such as The Living Bible. However I have heard many warnings about its accuracy in translation. This is just one that I recently ran across.
It seems that the translators of the NLT found some importance in making many of the pronouns gender inclusive. The same goes for passages that use the words man or mankind to refer to all of humanity; for example, they often changed man to person or men to humans, etc. The latter seems harmless enough, since it is understood by the contexts of the passages that men refers to both men and women. There is a problem, however, when it comes to the pronouns; this usually involves changing he to they or his to theirs, etc. In other words, the translators chose to change a first person, singular, masculine pronoun to a first person, plural, neutral pronoun.
John Fonville has written an extensive evaluation concerning this matter. Being a purist, I think it is dishonest to change any of these pronouns from the original meaning. But one of his examples really stood out to me. In this example, changing the pronoun from singular to plural seems to diminish a prophetic passage involving the crucifixion of Christ. See what you think:
The passage is in Psalm 34:19-20.
KJV:
Psalms 34:19-20 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (20) He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
NLT:
19 The righteous face many troubles, but the LORD rescues them from each and every one.
20 For the LORD protects them from harm––not one of their bones will be broken!
Many commentators point to this passage as one of the Scriptures referred to in John 19:33, 36 (the other being Exodus 12:46):
It seems that the translators of the NLT found some importance in making many of the pronouns gender inclusive. The same goes for passages that use the words man or mankind to refer to all of humanity; for example, they often changed man to person or men to humans, etc. The latter seems harmless enough, since it is understood by the contexts of the passages that men refers to both men and women. There is a problem, however, when it comes to the pronouns; this usually involves changing he to they or his to theirs, etc. In other words, the translators chose to change a first person, singular, masculine pronoun to a first person, plural, neutral pronoun.
John Fonville has written an extensive evaluation concerning this matter. Being a purist, I think it is dishonest to change any of these pronouns from the original meaning. But one of his examples really stood out to me. In this example, changing the pronoun from singular to plural seems to diminish a prophetic passage involving the crucifixion of Christ. See what you think:
The passage is in Psalm 34:19-20.
KJV:
Psalms 34:19-20 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (20) He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
NLT:
19 The righteous face many troubles, but the LORD rescues them from each and every one.
20 For the LORD protects them from harm––not one of their bones will be broken!
Many commentators point to this passage as one of the Scriptures referred to in John 19:33, 36 (the other being Exodus 12:46):
And again we should be reminded of the importance of knowing exactly what God has said.But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs... For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (6) Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Posts
2 comments:
A good rule of thumb. Read the thought for thoughts for the broad scope of the story's context. Read the word for word for the exact study of the meaning.
ESV Study coming soon!
I can agree with that, in part at least. And the NLT might be an adequate version for the purpose of getting "the broad scope of the story's context," although I wouldn't use it that way.
My primary argument here is that we should be very careful about the details. Also it is still possible to get an understanding of the general context of the Bible by reading more formal versions. I know some people get hung up on language and grammatical structure, but I have always contended that we should challenge ourselves with more difficult reading. Otherwise how are we ever going to increase our knowledge, vocabulary, etc. And we must always remember that the Bible is unique in that it is the Word of God; it requires that the Spirit of God help us to understand. And just as it is impossible for God to help us understand a specific book of the Bible if we never read that book, I think it is equally difficult to receive a better understanding with certain details having been left out or unreasonably altered.
Having said all that, let me make it clear that I believe none of us will have a perfect understanding of God's Word on this side of eternity.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment