Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

A Comparison Between Mainline and Evangelical Translations

Dylan569

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2024
Messages
32
When I check newer translations, the first two verses I look at are Ex. 21:22 and 1 Cor. 6:9. There is a very clear switch in meaning from the overwhelming, historic view of the church to most modern translations by fundamentalists and evangelicals. To illustrate, I offer the following:

Older versions translate "miscarriage" in Ex.21:22, and older commentaries, even those using the KJV, also view Ex. 21:22 as miscarriage. The 1977NASB used the word "miscarriage", but changed it to born prematurely in 1995NASB because of the battle over abortion. Clearly, a change in translation and commentary was based on the conservative theology of fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Translations translating as miscarriage by word or definition in Ex. 21:22
-
Septuagint, Wycliffe, Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Lamsa Peshitta, ABPenglish, RSV, 1977NASB, NEB, NRSV, REB, NRSVue

Commentaries most of which were based on the KJV describe it as miscarriage in Ex. 21:22 -
Matthew Henry, John Trapp, Matthew Poole, Joseph Benson, Adam Clarke, Cambridge Bible, Kretzmann, Peter Pett

Then on 1 Corinthians 6:9 -

The 1946 RSV was first to use "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9, but in later mainline translations, "homosexuals" was avoided as very misleading. The recognition of the misleading translation was known prior to the 1969 Stonewall Riot and the beginning of LGBTQ activism. While the mainline translations removed "homosexuals', the fundamentalist, evangelical versions in accordance with their conservative theology continue to use some form of "homosexuals" in the verse, partially based on the BDAG. After the translations be sure to check the definitions of the key words as given in the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary.

The King James Version of 1611/1769:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," (1Cor 6:9 KJV)

Young's Literal Translation of 1898:
"have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites," (1Cor 6:9 YLT)

Dr. Alfred Marshall, Greek-English Interlinear literal translation, 1958:
"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites" 1 Cor. 6:9

The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985(Most widely used RC Bible outside of the USA)
"Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites," 1 Cor. 6:9

Definitions from the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary

EFFEMINATE 1.
Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor.

VOLUPTUOUS Given to the enjoyments of luxury and pleasure; indulging to excess in sensual gratifications.
Soften'd with pleasure and voluptuous life.

ABUSER One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6.

RAVISHER 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace.

**Notice, in the 1828 Webster's a "sodomite" when compared to the synonyms and definition, does not match the definition of the modern word and concept of "homosexual". Based on Ex. 21:22 and 1 Cor. 6:9, I seldom use the modern, fundamentalist, evangelical versions.

From an article found in the 1952 RSV:
"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contradictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers. The Bible translator is not an expositor; however pronounced his views about Biblical doctrines, he has no right whatever to intrude his opinions into the translation, or to permit his dogmatic convictions to qualify or shape its wording. His one responsibility, and it is absolute, is to render the Biblical meaning as accurately and effectively as is possible into appropriate English." page 14
 
Back
Top