Comments on: The Problem of Choosing a Good Bible Translation

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:10:13 +0000

Ecclesiasticus 37.27:

My child, test yourself while you live;
see what is bad for you and do not give in to it.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:04:09 +0000

It's critical to go back to the source languages, to avoid major mistranslations like the common mistake of saying that in Isiah it talks about a virgin giving birth (which would be "bethulah" – virgin) instead of what it actually is in that passage in Hebrew "almah" — young woman. The two words do not even have the same root! There is also the issue that the entire section is in the past and presence tense (Hebrew has clear tenses) , not in the future tense — so it never says "will give birth" but rather "Has given birth" So it's about an event that already happened — a different child already born to a young mother! Ooops! If you care about accuracy, and not about supporting what you want to read….Avoid any so-called translation that goes from the Hebrew to the Greek to another language. You must go from Hebrew alone for all original information about what you call the "Old Testament"." Just a few observations….
My recent post What advice would you give your 21 year old self

By: Will

Will — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:26:51 +0000

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but Chuck, if this is the first time you've ever heard someone say they like the HCSB, you need to get out more!

The HCSB is by far one of the best English translations available. It suffers from a marketing deficit to be sure, but hopefully that's all changing now.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:33:20 +0000

You are the only person I've ever heard who likes the HCSB! Because that's remarkable and I like your tweets, I decided to leave a comment. I'm not saying that's wrong but I never heard anyone say it before.

By: Helen Fuller

Helen Fuller — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:43:45 +0000

Thanks Paul for the link to the Wycliffe article. I believe they are also involved in the BSL Bible Project in some way. This is a live video version rather than an animation. Work is progressing slowly as clips are produced and demonstrated to the Deaf community to gain their feedback. For more information please see: www.bslbible.org.uk

By: Helen Fuller

Helen Fuller — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:39:30 +0000

Sign Languages are 'regular languages'; the only difference is that they are visual rather than spoken. Literacy rates amongst Deaf people tends to be lower than amongst the hearing population (a sweeping generalisation, I know!) so I would argue that the visual language is their heart language. Certainly my Deaf friends would claim that BSL is their first language and say that English is their second language. In some countries it is difficult for Deaf children (and adults) to get access to even the most basic education and it is highly likely that the only access to language that they will have is a sign language developed in the home with their largely hearing families. This truly is a hidden people group.

By: paulmorriss

paulmorriss — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:58:47 +0000

P.S. Link to magazine mentioned on that page, as in a few months a different issue will be in place: http://wycliffe.org.uk/DOCUMENTS/wfl_july09.pdf

By: paulmorriss

paulmorriss — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:57:45 +0000

Wycliffe are working on sign languages too: http://wycliffe.org.uk/aboutus_wfl.html Disclosure: I work for Wycliffe. Eddie, mentioned above, is my boss.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:55:30 +0000

Thanks for the link and the encouraging comments, Nathan. This is a great post (and not just because you are responding to me!).

Nick makes some good points and I more or less agree with him. Yes, we are called to 'preach the Gospel' but we are also called to 'make disciples of all nations'. In the long term disciples need to be able to immerse themselves in God's word. It is true that this does not always mean reading – and Nick is right that the for most of history, very few people were literate. However, we have also moved on from the days when the best technology we had to illustrate the Gospel was stained glass. Wycliffe and partner organisations are doing a great deal to promote the use of oral Scriptures. Solar powered and wind up MP3 players are used to distribute readings of the Scriptures in vernacular languages. But alongside this, it is worth remembering that the original drive to push education in the Western world came from the Church. The combination of Scripture Translation and literacy work that Wycliffe practices brings a vast range of benefits beyond access to the Bible itself.

By: Nick Norelli

Nick Norelli — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:30:42 +0000

I just wanted to correct one thing: How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth was written by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss, not Douglas Stuart (him and Fee co-authored How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth and How to Read the Bible Book by Book). As far as translations of the Bible into other languages goes, it's a great idea, and we should certainly be working towards that end (in fact many wonderful people are), but hearing the Gospel is not contingent upon having a written document in your language. We send missionaries into foreign lands to preach the good news of Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection. One need only hear the message, not necessarily read it. I think it's also worth mentioning that in ancient times the majority of the world's people were illiterate and not much has changed since then. That didn't stop the Gospel from spreading through word and art (look at churches with stained glass windows and you'll notice that the images depict major portions of Scripture).