What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace)

[…] don’t weight all the versions precisely as he does, but he provides some excellent guidelines.  Not surprisingly he likes the NET.  I do too, though […]

My only complaint about the ESV study Bible, which I enjoy, is that it leans more heavily to the Calvinist teachings of pre-election. I think that we have to realize that all translations to some extent at least are going to be biased by the personal beliefs folks that are put on the council to translate it.

That’s why I don’t depend on one translation, but have several.

[…] Comment Dan Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, helpfully answers this […]

Our only objection to the NET bible, is in fact the bias of the text-critical footnotes in favour of the Hortian (Alexandrian) text-type and it’s many flawed readings.

If the footnotes were more neutral and unbiased, the NETbible would be an awesome resource. As it stands, many of the notes are grossly misleading and present a very one-sided view of the text-critical resources and the real situation.

I am not suggesting a TR-only or Majority Text is the only approach, but only that everyone knows the jury is hardly out on the textual history of transmission of the NT. It is dishonest and unscientific not to mention the many real points of difference between both previous and modern scholars on these issues.

Other scientific fields don’t suffer from this kind of political dishonesty. Physicists for instance can disagree strongly about the origin of the universe, or the best approach to a grand Unified theory (GUT), or the many choices available for formulating an electrodynamic theory (QED). But they don’t disguise the fact that there is no agreed upon GUT or QED. They are happy to point to small successes in prediction and control with various interim solutions.

A great example is how the NETbible has handled the question of the authenticity of the Pericope Adulterae (PA = Jn. 7:53-8:11). You have had Harris’ textual “notes” for years. But you have made no progress at all in correcting the most basic of facts, or in keeping abreast of the newest external (textual and patristic) and internal (literary and grammatical) evidences.

But ordinary Christian students have a right to know that it has not at all been demonstrated that the passage was not written by John the Evangelist, and that most of the previous evidence and arguments against it were overthrown by scientific advances decades ago.

http://adultera.awardspace.com/DUMB/NETBIBLE-JN8.html

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo, if you object to the NET Bible’s text, then you must object to almost all modern translations’ texts. But to say that the notes are dishonest is uncharitable. The reason the notes are not updated, as you demand, is simply that we have not changed the notes for the printed text yet. That revision will be coming, but the readers should know that there are several more manuscripts that the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts teams have discovered that lack the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Your link, which calls Bruce Metzger a liberal scholar and says that Metzger is to textual criticism what George Bush is to international diplomacy, is exceedingly misleading and, frankly, very irresponsible. Bruce Metzger is, by almost any standard, the best American NT textual critic of the 20th century; some would call him the best NT textual critic of the 20th century, period. And he was no liberal—unless your criterion is inerrancy. He embraced the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the infallibility of the scriptures, the Trinity, etc.

In the readable category I would add the New Living Translation (NLT). It’s enjoyable to read while still retaining the accuracy of a translation (rather than just a paraphrase.) The NLT Study Bible is also a great resource, maybe not as hefty as the ESVSB, but still very good.

Maybe Bruce Metzger was not as conservative as some, but to imply some type of liberal agenda upon his conclusions and methodology is nothing but emotional rhetoric. While both liberals and hyper-conservatives will bend things in their direction, it is important to know the options in a balanced way. I don’t know of any other Bible like the NET that truly attempts to help people understand the issues and the tensions. That is why I recommend, like you Dan, that everyone own one.

Yes, DT, that’s what I meant when I spoke of the Living Bible. It’s now called the New Living Translation. Begun by Kenneth Taylor, it now has a great team of scholars behind it. The paraphrase is very lively and fairly accurate. I still would not recommend it as a primary study Bible though.

Dan – I knew the NLT had its roots in the Living Bible but was under the impression that it was now considered a new translation rather than a paraphrase. How do scholars view it? I agree that it wouldn’t be a good choice for a primary study Bible, but I find it is very helpful to people new to the Bible – easy to read with helpful notes.

DT, I don’t know how scholars view it–at least not in any detailed way. What I do know is that, because of the scholars who worked on the revision, it is viewed more favorably than before. There was some concern in some circles that the original paraphrase was too Arminian and not reflecting what the text said very accurately in such places. That issue has been resolved.

Thanks Dan for the helpful post and thoughts.

We tend to expect too much from a translation. It really only puts us on first base in terms of understanding what the original text says. That’s not to underestimate the importance of the translation. You have to get to first base even if you hit a home run.

Hi,
Given that you like the KJV, is there any reason why you did not mention the NKJV? I noticed that it is not even listed in the poll. It uses the same manuscript background as the KJV, and tries to maintain the same lyrical qualities of the KJV. What about it left you cold?

I worked on the NKJV as a proofreader (working directly for Art Farstad). The Greek text is the same as for the KJV, which is hardly a recommendation for it! None of the translators, as far as I know, thought that the Textus Receptus was the closest text to the original. When the Majority Text (Hodges-Farstad) appeared, it deviated from the TR in 1838 places. This leaves translation philosophy as the sole criterion on which to judge it. And there, I think it comes up short. It is not nearly as elegant as the KJV, but is far more pedestrian. In this respect, I found it to be just a bit more readable than the NASB. If one wants a more accurate translation, I would recommend the RSV/ESV/NRSV (over the NASB and NKJV), and the NET over these.

Wow, Dan, that last comment almost deserves a CMP chart 😉

I don’t know if I should take that as a compliment or an insult, Susan!

mmm…..more likely the later.

I have some real problems with “The Message”. It often seems to really change the meaning of the Bible a great deal.

Here are just a couple of examples in the NIV and then in “The Message”.

Romans 15:13

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” NIV

“Oh! May the God of green hope fill you up with joy, fill you up with peace, so that your believing lives, filled with the life-giving energy of the Holy Spirit, will brim over with hope!” The Message

Who is the God of green hope and what on earth is green hope anyway??

Romans 8:35:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” NIV

“Do you think anyone is going to be able to drive a wedge between us and Christ’s love for us? There is no way! Not trouble, not hard times, not hatred, not hunger, not homelessness, not bullying threats, not backstabbing, not even the worst sins listed in Scripture:” The Message

Notice how he adds the phrase about the worst sins listed in Scripture here.

And lastly, this one: Ephesians 2:1-3

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[2] and following its desires and thoughts” NIV

“It wasn’t so long ago that you were mired in that old stagnant life of sin. You let the world, which doesn’t know the first thing about living, tell you how to live. You filled your lungs with polluted unbelief, and then exhaled disobedience. We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat.” The Message

Cheryl, that’s rich–green hope? I’ve never heard of that before. Maybe Peterson is a secret tree hugger! (:-) As for the rest, my point was that the Message should be read a passage at a time, not verse by verse. All such paraphrases need input from accurate translations. What I find in the examples you listed is a refreshing paraphrase, though if one peers too deeply it can be troubling. The main thing to get out of paraphrases is the feel for the passage. But this illustrates the inherent weakness of any paraphrase: they interpret far more than a translation does. And, inevitably, we will find some things in any paraphrase to disagree with. Thanks for sharing these examples.

NET 3)
________________________
| | |
RSV ESV NRSV
_________________
| |
NASB NKJV

Dear Mr. Wallace: Thank you for your charitable response: Lets take a look:

Mr. Wallace: “Nazaroo, if you object to the NET Bible’s text, then you must object to almost all modern translations’ texts.”

The short answer is yes. Here’s why: I’ve personally examined the 200 whole and half-verses deleted by Westcott/Hort and followed by modern critical versions. I have found at least fifty obvious errors caused by homoioteleuton, all documented here.

http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/Errors.html

What does that tell us? Not only were WH wrong 1/4 of the time in deleting the words of God from the Sacred text, but so are modern critical editors.

Why is that? The answer is simple. Textual criticism is not any kind of a science, and has no credibility in establishing the text of a set of documents like the NT. The methodology is incapable of solving the simplest Variation Unit in a scientific manner.
—————-
Mr. Wallace: “… but the readers should know that there are several more manuscripts that the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts teams have discovered that lack the story of the woman caught in adultery.”

This amusing fact will have no significance whatever for solving the difficult problem of the textual history of Jn. 7:53-8:11. As Mr. Wallace knows, none of the “new MSS” are older than the 8th or 9th century, nor is their text. Even a hundred new MSS omitting the PA won’t be significant compared to the some 1,350 MSS from the very same period which contain the verses, mostly without comment or even an asterisk.

The really important textual history for this passage occurred prior to the 4th century, antidating any extant MSS other than perhaps P66.

Mr. Wallace: “Bruce Metzger is, by almost any standard, the best American NT textual critic of the 20th century; some would call him the best NT textual critic of the 20th century, period.”

And what does that amount to? There was no competent scholar in the 20th century who could perform any credible textual criticism of the NT.

Why? Because there was no scientific methodology available. Metzger was a meticulous documenter of opinions, conjectures, and random historical facts. But he failed to present a credible and comprehensive history of the NT text and its transmission for the last 2 millenia.

Being the best at nothing is still nothing.

————————————

Mr. Wallace: “And he was no liberal—unless your criterion is inerrancy. He embraced the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the infallibility of the scriptures, the Trinity, etc”

This statement is itself misleading. You have failed to mention that the version of “infallibility” that Metzger embraced (and many other evangelicals) only applies to the original autographs: A worthless doctrine which as a corollary implies that all extant copies and versions of the Bible are in fact error-containing, with unsure readings, and unknowable reliability in any instance.

Thank you for your courteous response to my comment.

peace
Nazaroo

Daniel Wallace,

Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, green hope–that one has always boggled my mind!

Unfortunately, there are quite a few places in “The Message” that just don’t seem to me to be true to the literal translations and therefore end up being troubling to me much more then refreshing.

I wonder why John 1:14 in referring to Jesus becomes, “generous inside and out, from start to finish,” instead of, “full of grace and truth”. The part about “truth” disappears entirely in that paraphrase.

Paul gives a list of sins in I Corinthians 6:9-10 in the NIV: ” the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers”. In “The Message” the list becomes: “Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it”. Somehow, the two don’t seem to me to give quite the same messge. Obviously Paul had a bunch of very specific sins in mind that he wanted people to be aware of here. Mr Petersen has lumped them all into 3 categories that are very general. And I am not at all sure what, “use and abuse the earth and everything in it,” means either or just how it fits with what Paul is saying here.

There are more examples I could give, but I think these are a great plenty. I hope I haven’t bored anyone with them. But this version has troubled me so much because of this type of thing that it is hard for me to be quiet when it is recommended by anyone.

[…] by T.C. R Over at Parchmen & Pen, Professor Daniel B. Wallace decides to tackle the question What Bible Should I Own? which in the end happens to be the NET Bible and with the ESV coming in second (well, he personally […]

And that’s “Dr.”Wallace to you, Mr. nazaroo.

Nazaroo, thank you for your opinions. Unfortunately, I find them rather idiosyncratic and, frankly, full of hubris. To say that “There was no competent scholar in the 20th century who could perform any credible textual criticism of the NT” sounds as if you know better. But what are your credentials? Are you competent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, Coptic? Have you studied in-depth church history, and examined countless manuscripts for any and all clues they could yield up? Metzger did all that and more. And there were several others like him.

Further, it is incorrect to say that only one Greek MS prior to the 4th century lacked the pericope adulterae. You forgot to mention P75 as well, an early third century papyrus. In fact, through the first five centuries we have but ONE Greek MS that has the PA—and it’s a manuscript that folks in your camp vilify more than any other. Through the first millennium the vast majority of MSS lack it. Thus, your statement that “As Mr. Wallace knows, none of the ‘new MSS’ are older than the 8th or 9th century, nor is their text” is factually wrong. You’re making a distinction between text and MS that most readers will not grasp: the text of a MS is as old as the oldest MSS to have it; thus, since P66, from the 2nd century, lacks the PA, the text of these 8th-9th century MSS reaches back at least to the second century. And when you say, “compared to the some 1,350 MSS from the very same period which contain the verses” this, too, is a misleading statement. Surely you don’t mean 1350 MSS from the 8th and 9th centuries, do you? No, the MSS that have the PA, though starting with one MS in the 5th century, don’t become a majority until several centuries later. As much as I would dearly love to have the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Bible, the evidence simply won’t allow me to go there. I used to hold that it was authentic, but after decade of toil in this field I recanted my views.

Cherylu, several more illuminating examples. Thanks! Again, I am not defending the Message’s interpretation in specific passages; rather, I am saying that it captures the feel of the original, living letters. It may well not capture their gist in every place, however. As for Peterson’s “use and abuse the earth and everything in it,” again, maybe he’s a secret tree hugger!

Here’s how I use paraphrases. When I want to get a feel for how the first Christians heard these letters, I check out paraphrases. The Message is as good as it gets on this score. But if I actually want to use a paraphrase when preaching or teaching, I have to check more accurate translations. If the paraphrase goes too far awry, I simply don’t use it when teaching. And the nature of a paraphrase, to beat a dead horse, is always interpretive. Your objections to Peterson’s work seem to be precisely at that level. I suspect that if you were to write to him, he could justify his paraphrases in terms of their interpretation. That may not satisfy you or me, but at least I would not go so far as to say that he is intentionally misleading in his paraphrase. Gordon Fee thought that Peterson’s work was a magnificent interpretive paraphrase on scripture. Chuck Swindoll has used it often in preaching. These men are no slouches.

the NET Bile is by far a very impressive translation ands one that I use in the UK, however, it has not got the main hands as yet the ESV, struggles as the NASB, in the UK with sales and cutting a niche in the Bible Market, the NIV still holds it with the NRSV, in the the Historical protestant church, where as the King James version, still remains the choice Bible among Pentecostals.
I enjoy using several translations ESV and NASB, along with the RSV and REB, however I think that HCSB, should be mentioned as it serves as a good mediating (optimal equivalent) translation between literal, and word for word. I use the Concordant Literal New Testament as it it consistent t the original Greek text, in that strives to conform as far as possible , to closely represent the closest equivalent i the Original, each word of which given a standard exclusive English rendering. Much of the Textual criticism and scholarly notes are found in the Concordant Literal New Testament, Text, where most translators would put it in the endnotes or margin or footnotes the CLNT strive to express the original as closely as possible to the original as far as idiom would allow,. However, their are part of the version that is rather awkward and wooden as the KJV, it still remans a good translation to read along with the other good translation such as the ESV, and NLT. I suggest that the bible people own would run like this KJV,NASB,ESV,NET,CLNT,HCSB,RSV,REB, NLT and Message.
Soil Deo Gloria. P.S.

Thank you for your informed viewpoint, Paige-Patric. I personally would not list the NASB that high, but many do. F. F. Bruce noted that if it weren’t for the RSV already in print, the NASB might have made a bigger splash, but nearly everything the NASB does well the RSV does better.

I wish more translations would follow J.B.Phillips’ example and avoid chopping up the text by inserting verse numbers and chapter divisions. In some places they create an artificial break in the flow of meaning, eg. there should be no break between the end of Ephesians chapter 5 and the start of chapter 6. I liked the NEB which kept the verse numbers out of the text and just printed them in a separate column alongside the column of text.

I also dislike the modern tendency to split up a chapter with sub-headings because it can impose an artificial structure on the text, eg. Luke 15 in the ESV where verses 1 and 2 are key to the 3 parables that follow in the rest of the chapter but the ESV lumps verses 1 and 2 in with the first parable only. Also, the sub-headings are not part of the inspired text but you can easily fall into the trap of subconsciously accepting the meaning of the sub-heading as gospel truth! I complained to the editor of the ESV about sub-headings and he replied that people today are generally less literate than former generations and they need sub-headings in the text to help them find their way around the bible!

Whats so good about the KJV?

Maybe it a good style back when it was written, but all I see when I read it are old words that need to be interpreted into modern english and so breaking the flow anyway.

Other than that it isn’t accurate and some bits don’t make sense (see unicorns?).

Why should everyone own one?

Naz, don’t turn this into a KJV Only/Majority text only debate. It is not what the post is about.

Dear C. Michael Patton:

I’m not KJV Only. This is a gross miscategorization of my position. My position is more like Dr. Maurice Robinson’s.

I would hold that the Byzantine text is a valid line of transmission like all others, and should be used in establishing the text like any other evidence. I would not exclude any textual evidence or text-type(s) such as the Alexandrian clusters of readings.

But any scientist intrinsically understands that you can’t get the full picture without considering *all* the evidence.

I happen to believe through careful research that the modern critical text has about 50 unnecessary omissions of the word of God as found in the original. This fact has little to do with KJV-Onlyists or Trinitarian vs. Unitarian controversies. These are accidental errors by omission in the Alexandrian MSS, and not doctrinally motivated.

The reason I participated in this post was because I think the modern critical Greek text is inferior because of mechanically self-imposed guidelines for ‘reconstruction’ that are neither scientific nor defensible.

Mr. Wallace chose the subject, “modern versions”, not I.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo, do you intentionally refer to Dr. Wallace as “Mr.” because you do not recognize his scholarship? http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/

Naz, that is why I said KJV Only/Majority text debate. I was not sure which camp you came from so I don’t see how I mischaracterized you. But before this turns into a debate about whether I mischaracterized you, I will restate my wishes for this thread. Let us not turn it into a debate about the majority text vs. eclectic text theories. Dan can override my wishes if he desires.

However, I will say that I was a New Testament major at DTS and had Dan as a teacher and, since, as a mentor. He taught us that serious consideration must be made of the Byz text, and that we should never discount it due to assumed across the board inferiority. He then gave examples where he believed that the Byz had the more accurate reading. You are right, all the evidence must be considered. But to assume that translators of modern versions don’t consider all the evidence is hasty and illinformed in my opinion. To assume a liberal bias is even more illinformed.

As soon as I saw this post, I knew the KJV only folk would be out.

I will put my 2 cents in for the NET – I enjoy the with and without notes version, and I love bible.org for the articles and other tools

I typically do give the NLT to new believers – it is easy to read, and it is reliable enough.

Let me set this straight:

I couldn’t care less about KJVonly arguments or the people behind them. I care as little about liberal bias (prevalent, or not).

The bottom line is:

Text. critics have no credible scientific methodology, and should not be followed until they can produce one.

Forget all other variants for now, including the PA.

Lets just talk about these 70 whole/half-verses deleted from the text in all modern critical editions and most modern versions (see my list onsite).

We agree wholeheartedly that these readings, mostly shared by Aleph/B, (1/3 with early pap. support,) represent an earlier Egyptian text, and prove the existence of the “ancestor” of Aleph/B, going back to the 2nd cent.

– Hort was right. He correctly (more or less) reconstructed the archetype of Aleph/B.

But the very evidence that specifically IDs the content of this ancestor is also worthless for correcting the original text.

For these are in fact “agreements in error” identifying the text. Since they are plainly accidents, unconsciously copied, they are “good readings” for establishing what their ancestor looked like. Thus they *do* belong in the text of any reconstruction of the ancestor of Aleph/B.

But the same evidence (homoioteleuton) that proves these weren’t conscious edits or “mixture” from diverse sources, also proves they are not original, but simply uncorrected mistakes. This clears Aleph/B from (many) active edits; they were mostly just copying accurately (discounting their own blunders).

But since we can identify them as h.t. errors, it is absurd to then re-introduce them into the reconstruction of the *ORIGINAL* text, which is what we want in a printed Bible. You cannot uncritically use an interim text raw to correct another text. It must be filtered and used intelligently, and with caution.

THAT is the absurd methodological flaw in 20th cent. TextCrit. Its not about ideology: its a total lack of any…

Dr. Wallace,
I think David raises an interesting question. It’s all well and good that a more mature Christian should have multiple Bible translations/paraphrases to study. However, which Bible should we give new believers who are just starting out in the faith?

I wouldn’t give them a NET Bible. I use this as my primary study Bible and absolutely love it, but i think a new Christian would be frankly overwhelmed by all the notes (I’ve been studying the Bible as an amateur for years and sometimes I find them overwhelming even thought they are extraordinarily useful). On the other extreme while I own and love the Message I would be hesitant to give that as an only Bible since while giving the jist of the passages, it sometimes doesn’t give the specifics which can be important. I don’t personally have much experience with the NLT, but if it a bit less of a paraphrase then the Message, while still being very readable it might be a good choice. Maybe an NIV Study Bible would work as well (this was my primary Bible before the NET).

…its the total lack of any credible scientific methodology.

peace
Nazaroo

These three remain: literary, accuracy and readability, but the greatest gift is gold.

How’s that for a double reference…

Nazaroo,

I am unaware of ANY serious NT scholar who holds that anything other than that only the original texts were inerrant. Literally everyone outside of KJV Only nuts agrees that the MSS we have contain errors. Unless you claim some special revelation from God telling you which MSS are inerrant I don’t see how one can believe otherwise given all the variants.

This is why I agree with Roger Olsen that “inerrancy” is a useless term. When used by a Bible scholar what that scholar actually means by the term causes it to die the death of a thousand qualifications. Even those who argue tooth and nail for inerrancy don’t understand inerrancy to mean what you’re average church attender sitting in the pews thinks it means.

Dear Michael T: the inherent contradiction in your position seems apparent, unless I am missing something.

On the one hand, you limit inerrancy beyond the autographs to a small group of “KJV Only nuts”. Then in the next paragraph you confess that “the average church attender” is also completely out of touch with the position of modern ‘scholarship’ (academia).

Now if we combine the two groups, that comes out as the majority of ordinary Christians. Are they all ignorant? Are they all KJV0nlyists? Are they all nuts? Its all so unclear.

I am not advocating any particular theory of “inerrancy”. I’m only pointing out that the academic version (autographs only) is utterly useless to Christians, and impractical, not just incomprehensible to the average Christian.

Its these very people (whom academics snub as ignorant of issues and wrong on their position) whom Christ died for, and called blessed, for God apparently hid the truth and wisdom from the “wise” (academics?) and revealed it to babes (simple fishermen).

When Christ returns, I hope to be counted among the ‘simple’, not the academics who thought they knew something, but “knew nothing as they ought to have known it”..

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo,
My position isn’t incoherent at all. Three groups of people.

1. KJV only nuts who claim that God inspired the translators of the KJV such that the translation is inerrant (even James White, who is one of the more conservative individuals out there, can point out the problems with this belief).

2. Professional academics who know better than to claim that inerrancy applies to anything but the original autographs. The problem with doing so is manifest. Which MSS are you going to claim is inerrant?

3. Average church goers who hear the term “inerrancy” and out of ignorance think it means something other than what it does. The very term “inerrancy” is a term created by academics. The problem is that those in the pews upon hearing the term think it means something other than what those academics intended it to mean.

“Its these very people (whom academics snub as ignorant of issues and wrong on their position) whom Christ died for, and called blessed, for God apparently hid the truth and wisdom from the “wise” (academics?) and revealed it to babes (simple fishermen).”

Got to love eisegesis and forcing you’re own interpretation on the text as it suits you. Without the “academics” who you hate so much we wouldn’t have a single translation of the Bible period. Not in English, Latin, French, Chinese or any other language save Greek and Hebrew. It takes years of academic study to even begin to grasp the Greek or Hebrew necessary to translate the Bible. Interestingly enough we have one of the foremost experts in the Greek language actually in this discussion, but you wouldn’t listen to him because he’s an “academic”.

We don’t need any of that “academic” talent.

Had they not published the Reformation Bibles, the stones themselves would have shouted and sung the gospel without a Bible.

But then only a Christian believer would know that.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo,

I’m sorry, but I just have to ask, “Whaaaat??” I’m not at all sure what point you are making with that comment, but it sounds like you don’t consider the Bible to really be all that necessary since the stones could do the job just fine without a written book.

And if you don’t need all of that “academic talent” translating the Bible, who do you think should do it? Someone that doesn’t even know Greek or Hebrew? If that is the case, give me a manuscript and let me at it. Don’t think you would want to use my translation though.

I simply don’t get what you are trying to say here at all.

Nazaroo,
“Had they not published the Reformation Bibles, the stones themselves would have shouted and sung the gospel without a Bible.”

Seriously man what are you talking about? I can only assume you are referring to Luke 19:40 where Jesus told the Pharisee’s that if his follower’s stopped praising God for the miracles they had witnessed the rocks would cry out. I have no clue how you can apply this to Bible translation. For most of Church History there were no Bible’s available in the vernacular for people to read, or if there was they were very rare and most people didn’t know how to read. Long story short you either studied and learned to read Latin, Greek, or Hebrew (which was impossible for the majority of people), or you relied on what the Priest told you the Bible said. I never heard any stories of rocks crying out as a result.

Also what Cheryl said. The Bible must not be very important since the rocks could do the job just as well. Maybe the nutso church down in Florida should burn their Bibles along with the Koran and go listen to what the rocks have to tell them.

I can’t believe people professing such knowledge about the Bible would be ignorant of the story for instance of Jeremiah’s scroll, burnt by the king of Israel himself.

The action was to no avail. An identical copy was re-dictated and sent again. The same is true regarding the work of scholars.

We can quote the book of Esther as a warning:

“For if you hold your peace at this time, deliverance shall arise from another place. But you and your family will be destroyed.” (Esther 4:14)

When a Bible critic, translator, publisher finishes his work, he had best say “I am a worthless servant. I have only done what it is my duty to do.”

peace
Nazaroo

I am sorry nazaroo, but I simply can not follow your train of thought. And it is not because I don’t know the story of Jeremiah’s scroll, or the story and warning spoken of in Esther. And it is not because I am an unbeliever that doesn’t know that God could make the rocks cry out if he so chose.

Great post, Dan.

What’re your thoughts on God’s Word as a paraphrase? In skimming parts of it, I think I prefer it to The Message.