Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site petsd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!petsd!cjh
From: cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bible Translations
Message-ID: <491@petsd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 19:47:40 EST
Article-I.D.: petsd.491
Posted: Wed Apr  3 19:47:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 07:36:12 EST
References: <8368@watarts.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J.
Lines: 102

[]
	Dave Brown has asked for information about
translations of the Bible, and about people's preferences.
Here are some translations that he did not mention:

1. Msgr. Ronald A. Knox did the first Roman Catholic
translation of the Bible into English since the Douay-Rheims
version.  

2. J. B. Phillips has translated the New Testament and the
earlier part of Isaiah.  He may have done more; my information
is almost 20 years old.

	For my taste, the Phillips translation is the most
attractive. It is definitely in "modern" (twentieth century)
English, and sometimes surprisingly down-to-earth and
colloquial.  (Where the AV has "O foolish Galatians" Phillips
has "Have all you Galatians gone mad?") This is fitting in the
New Testament, since (so I understand) the original Greek is
decidedly unpolished.

	I once asked a priest (who was also a professor) about
the quality of various translations, including Knox.
He said that Knox's scholarship had been faulted; he knew much
less Hebrew than some later translators.  Close attention to
Knox's footnotes shows that he stuck to the Vulgate, even when
it seemed to be wrong.  Nevertheless, his translation is quite
readable.

Peace,
Chris

--
Full-Name:  Christopher J. Henrich
UUCP:       ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh
US Mail:    MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Phone:      (201) 870-5853
From vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watarts!dbrown Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site petsd.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP
Path: petsd!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!clyde!watmath!watarts!dbrown
From: dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Bible Translations
Message-ID: <8368@watarts.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 18:18:42 EST
Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 02:28:07 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 49

Howdy, pardners.

Because this net has been getting a little hot lately, maybe it is time to cool
things down a little bit, or at least hopefully.

For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you probably know that there
are many different translations. A partial list would include:

King James Version (Authorized)
New King James Version
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
The Living Bible
New American Standard
Good New's Version
Jerusalem Bible
Amplified Bible
Berkley Version
New International Version
	      (Thompson Chain Reference;N.I.V.,pg. 1505-1506)

There are probably other versions floating around. If you know of any, post them
and I'm sure we would like to hear about them. Oh, by the way, if anyone is won-dering, the Book, is a copy of the Living Bible.

Now, for my second part. Which translation do you prefer? I know some people be-lieve almost doctrinally in one version; the King James comes to mind.
And some of you will probably say the Greek originals. All power to you if you
can read Koine. But, I am more interested in a potential growth, of everyone's
spiritual life, through a mutual discussion of the merits of a translation.

Let me start us off:

I use the N.I.V.; partly because it was the first bible given to me, and 
partly because I haven't had much exposure to other translations.
But, through the Sunday School class I teach, I've come into contact with
the Living Bible. I do not like it; the meaning of some of the Greek has been
changed. It just doesn't jive with the other popular versions. Now, on it's
own, it ain't bad. But, in comparison to the R.S.V. or the N.I.V., I don't 
think the Living Bible stacks up. It just isn't a good translation, no 
matter how much we would like to believe that Paul, etc. meant what this
translation says.

Well,that's a start. Have fun, but let's not get angry at anybody, eh?
The discussion can be a growing one, if we all decide to make it so.
Just ignore any anarchistic comments on this one, and let fly with a
comment or two. Till then,

Make today a wonderful one for someone,

					DAVE BROWN