Recently Mike Pohlman at the Gospel Coalition posted a link to a WSJ piece on fundamentalism including reference to the “King James Only” movement. Here are some thoughts on how we should think about Bible translations.
Heidelcast Episode 6: What About Bible Translations?
You can contact the Heidelcast directly at heidelcast@gmail.com at you can leave questions via voicemail for broadcast at 760 278 1563.
Thanks to Young-Mi Cha for the artwork!
Any thoughts on conservapedia’s bible translation efforts?
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/10/conservapedias.html
Tendentious Bible translations (e..g. the “Cotton Patch” Bible) are wrong and this one seems particularly silly.
How prophetic! It just gets sillier and sillier! Here’s Andy Schlafly on the Colbertnation, speaking on Conservapedia’s Bible translation project.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly
The “best of the public” is supposed “come forward” to translate the Bible? Really? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard well, since the stupidest thing heard yesterday. Unbelievable.
It gets better (or stupidier depending on one’s perspective):
http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Best_of_the_public
http://www.conservapedia.com/Best_of_the_public
When I first heard of that moronic website & “project” I was certain it was a hoax – but tragically it seems not!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bible_Translation_Issues
Clark and Schafly at least share concern 20 from this list. Also Andrew Schlafly holds a law degree from Harvard, graduating magna cum laude. Disclosure: I’ve contributed to conservapedia before (never to the bible translation project, though). In fact, Andrew Schlafly himself has left nice comments to me about my contributions. Although there was a time when I tried to write something objective about something or other whereupon Schlafly either unleashed upon me or decided to interfere with one of his high school, home-schooling minions. But it was probably just a misunderstanding. I wasn’t joking or making fun, but it wasn’t clear.
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bible_Translation_Issues&action=history
From the history, one can see exactly who wrote these concerns and most of them are from the Harvard magna cum laude J.D. himself.
Good Heidelcast, Scott.
The “drop a word in the box and out comes a perfect translated word” idea is simplistic and doesn’t account for idioms etc. This thinking renders things woodenly and not very understandable. Try typing a statement into those online translation sites translating whatever’s said into another language. Then translate the phrase back into English on the same site. If the drop a word in the box theory is correct, it should be understandable every time, but it doesn’t quite work that way.
http://www.engrish.com plays off this bum word box idea well.
Thanks a lot for the link drollord, that’s about 15/20 minutes I’ll never get back ; )
I’m here for your benefit, Brad. I assure you that those 15-20 minutes were well spent.
The problem is not Bible translations, the problem is companies, groups, scholars, liberals who want to make yet another translations and sometimes with the intent for profit. Also, the Church, in this case the English speaking Churches or Church NOT being involved in our modern Bible translations as the KJV Bible translators as Church members (including King James) once were.
In defense of poor Mrs. Smith, who most likely knows here KJV better than none KJV only folks.:
When Miss Smith approached her pastor (hypothetically, I know)) and said to him, “If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”
That is not Mrs. Smith fault but the fault of English Speaking Pastors, Elders, Seminary Professors, for not teaching her that in America, Capitalism sometimes runs the Church.
Young-mi is good with those designs.