Evidence for God from Science

Is there a version of the Bible that is a translation from a O.E.C perspective?

I am sick of referring to my N.I.V. when it doesn't support O.E.C.

*Edit* that is in English, I am not learning Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Is there a version of the Bible that is a translation from a O.E.C perspective?

I am sick of referring to my N.I.V. when it doesn't support O.E.C.

*Edit* that is in English, I am not learning Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek

Daniel, I have an NIV study bible, and I don't have a problem with it, and I'm an OEC. What about the NIV, do you feel doesn't support OEC?

I'm not particularly aware of any Bible that is specifically translated from an OEC perspective and frankly, even though I'm OEC I'd be skeptical of any Bible that openly declared an agenda of that sort. It's something to consider however as there are guiding principles that go into the perameters of a Bible Translation. The King James for example, was translated in part to provide an English Translation with authority from the perspective of the Anglican Church and the Monarchy that headed it in the continued transition of the Reformation.

The NIV is multi-sourced with multiple translators from a broad scope of traditions aimed at putting an emphasis on translating for meaning rather than maintaining syntax and exact word for word progression as much as possible and to result in an overall text that was readable in current English at the time at was issued at about an 8th grade reading level.

The English Standard Version, (ESV) is a major retranslation which is popular in reformed churches.

It's interesting to look sometimes at who accepts and who rejects certain translations and to note the theme that figures into their acceptance or rejection statements. They're usually pretty measured but if you look closely sometimes you can see some form of evaluation as to how well that particular translation can be read with a view to maintain their denominational distinctives.

The Christian Reformed Churches o

f North American for example have this on their web page noting the translations approved and they differentiate between what is approved for General Use and Reading within the services of the Church and what is approved for use as a study Bible (there's one approved for bible study only but not for general use in the Church at large,

http://www.crcna.org/pages/beliefs_bibl ... ations.cfm#

All this to say, Translations that work from a narrow scope of Theological Perspective in terms of their translator team or their stated purpose, puts that perspective in a subtle way in some ways above the Biblical Text and that can become the authority appealed to rather than the Scripture itself. So, a study Bible perhaps where the actual Biblical text is not biased but the notes are tied to a particular perspective is another matter. Study Bibles often do have a particular slant to them in the notes (which is really unavoidable at any level.) I have less trouble that that because the Study notes are not presented as inspired although some people have a hard time differentiating them from the text at times. The BIble with Scofield notes for example was one of the first types of Bibles that merged notes into the same volume with text and many people see it as having strongly established the Gap Theory because it was present in the notes and people gave it more credence because it was right there in the text.

We are also starting to see some translations with a political motive, like being gender-neutral or changes text around homosexuality.

Every serious Christian should have an interlinear Bible at least, and also learn a little bit of Greek and Hebrew so as not to rely on any translation specifically. Translations need to reflect the original text and intent of the authors, not just for the Bible, bit for any translation work. That is very hard, speaking from experience.

What do you think should be in an OEC Bible that is in the original texts that is not in the current translations?

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Is there a version of the Bible that is a translation from a O.E.C perspective?

I am sick of referring to my N.I.V. when it doesn't support O.E.C.

*Edit* that is in English, I am not learning Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek

Daniel, I have an NIV study bible, and I don't have a problem with it, and I'm an OEC. What about the NIV, do you feel doesn't support OEC?

It's not that it doesn't support it, it is the fact that I have to sit and decipher each passage.

I'm not particularly aware of any Bible that is specifically translated from an OEC perspective and frankly, even though I'm OEC I'd be skeptical of any Bible that openly declared an agenda of that sort. It's something to consider however as there are guiding principles that go into the perameters of a Bible Translation. The King James for example, was translated in part to provide an English Translation with authority from the perspective of the Anglican Church and the Monarchy that headed it in the continued transition of the Reformation.

I see what you are saying here and agree ( I should not warp the Bible to suit my world view ), maybe a Bible with multiple translation would be more effective.

What do you think should be in an OEC Bible that is in the original texts that is not in the current translations?

Maybe not a specific O.E.C. Bible but maybe a Bible with multiple translation. When I was a young Christian I left because of things that I thought were inconsistent with what I knew of the natural world, If I had a Bible with multiple translations I may have been able to accept the truth more readily and save a lot of wasted time.
I would also prefer it to show my son's as they get older that there is more than one translation.

Dan