Stuff about English Bible translations...

Or as I like to call it, "things that Bible scholars discuss when amongst themselves." Now let's get a couple things straight. I by no means am a Bible scholar. I minored in theology in college, so that gives me the credibility as a Bible scholar of a wharf rat. I did however room with several folks who are now either pastors or missionaries, so hopefully some of their insights into Scripture rubbed off on me. It doesn't appear that way though, as I am hopelessly inept at interpreting the Scriptures. Also, I don't read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. But I should. Learning them is just down on my list of "things to learn." So anyway, this is a response to a debate I was reading on a buddies blog, "ChurchETHOS.com." Check it out, it seems to be pretty solid, and Nate is an upstanding individual. The debate is about the English Standard Version of the Bible versus the Holman Christian Standard Bible. The Presbyterian Church in America adopted the ESV as their official version a few years back, and if you use anything else you are immediately excommunicated! No excuses!! Not really, but it is kind of ludicrous for a denomination of the Church to proclaim a translation as it's "official translation." By the way, I attend a PCA church and consider myself a Presbyterian. So I probably will be asked to leave the church in shame on Sunday, never to associate with it's members again! Again, just kidding! This does however leave a bad taste in regards to the ESV in the mouths of those whom don't quite subscribe to the Reformed doctrine. From what I've read, they seem to think if you use the ESV exclusively you've drank the Reformed Kool-Aid!! Now I'll admit, the Kool-Aid is refreshing, but this whole mess about English Translations is a bit rediculous. So here is my response to it, maybe it will illustrate my point a little better that this mess of ramblings...:

One of the justifications for, and what appear to be negative comments against, the ESV(English Standard Version) vs HCSB(Holman Christian Standard Bible) debate seem to be a translational bias based on the theological beliefs of the translator. I appreciate the healthy debate, and the stance that each reading this take on their particular favorite translation. I know from experience that English Bible translations are like good beer, everyone has their particular favorite and has a substantial reason for choosing it. You make the bias point in the previous post as well as this one. I appreciate your stance on this topic, as you seem to have given this a considerable amount of thought. Good for you, Nate. More of us should be like that. I would like to point out a couple of things. First, the history of English translations of the Bible is littered with biased translation. The Geneva Bible came out, with considerable bias and some outright attacks against King James I and his monarchy. He then responds with his own translation, the KJV(King James Version), which many in the Church, particularly in the South, will insist is the only version that God inspired, and if you use anything else you may as well read the Book of Mormon! Note that this version is oft described as the most inaccurate English translation available (the KJV, not the BoM). It does say a lot that our translations seem to be more accurate, with some such as the NASB(New American Standard Bible) being retranslated with time. However, this leads to my other point, these are translations and are no substitute for the original language texts. This is the one and only thing I find that Muslims get right. They are only supposed to use the Arabic version of the Koran, which it the language in which it was written. This leaves no room for translational error, no opportunity for the translator to insert his or her theology into the translation. Christians should be taught Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic early on so that each and every person would be able to read the Bible in the language in which it was written. I am not condemning the practice of translation, it opened the doors to many who were unlearned and allowed a greater percentage of the populace to understand God's Word. It's just that it seems translations are sort of a Pandora's Box. We now have to not only try to interpret what God is saying to us, but if the translator is trying to sway us to his or her system of theology. Which maybe authenticates your argument for the HCSB, I don't know. I personally use the NASB, NKJV(New King James Version), and the ESV. I'm Presbyterian, so I of course use the ESV because, well, that's what the pastor uses and I hate it when I get lost when he's reading Scripture and our translations differ!!! Know what I mean? Anyway, this is more of an essay than a comment, so I'll go.

See what I mean? This whole deal could have been avoided if instead of retranslating the Bible into the popular language, we could have just taught everyone how to read the Bible in it's existing tongues. Now I realize that this would require significantly more work, but it would have kept Christianity a bit more pure in the sense of differing beliefs. Christians appear to the remainder of the World's religions to be the most disorganized bunch of folks to ever believe in anything. This could also be why we are so vulnerable to outside influence of other beliefs. We can't agree on more basic theology, probably because we each use different translations that tilt the meanings a bit differently, depending on the translator. A Muslim acquaintance of mine actually stated that this is why Christians are "so confused." Well said, Rizwan. So that's it, just a little something I wanted to share with my two readers. Yeah right, everyone knows I really have like...no readers!! Saying I have all two readers just strokes my ego!! Oh, by the way, my favorite beer is Stella Artois, just incase you wanted to send me a bottle......or a case!! Later, crazies!!