Tree of Life Bible - The New Covenant

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Hot off the presses. Yet another modern version "Messianic Bible" disaster. Corrupt text (textus corruptus), poor translation and running away from Bible words, even baptism.

==================

Personally, I've lost some of my enthusiasm towards spending time on the various errors, confusions and inconsistencies of these versions. My general policy is that all Westcott-Hort and Critical Text versions are hopelessly corrupt, no matter how translated, and we can spend too much time looking at the latest errors. Such as gender-neutral versions and paraphrases and this and that. The basic problem is the abbreviated and corrupt Hortian (Vaticanus) text .. GIGO.

Since this new version has a more official air trying to make inroads in Messianic fellowships, and even has Michael Brown's name attached as one of the three "Biblical Language Experts", we may want to note a few points. I actually have a copy available to look at (no, I did not buy the version).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Ekklesia]

(08-03-2011 02:39 AM)Steven Avery Wrote:  Hi Folks,

Hot off the presses. Yet another modern version "Messianic Bible" disaster. Corrupt text (textus corruptus), poor translation and running away from Bible words, even baptism.

==================

Personally, I've lost some of my enthusiasm towards spending time on the various errors, confusions and inconsistencies of these versions. My general policy is that all Westcott-Hort and Critical Text versions are hopelessly corrupt, no matter how translated, and we can spend too much time looking at the latest errors. Such as gender-neutral versions and paraphrases and this and that. The basic problem is the abbreviated and corrupt Hortian (Vaticanus) text .. GIGO.

Since this new version has a more official air trying to make inroads in Messianic fellowships, and even has Michael Brown's name attached as one of the three "Biblical Language Experts", we may want to note a few points. I actually have a copy available to look at (no, I did not buy the version).

Shalom,
Steven Avery

It is sad how a poor translation can imply something is 'biblical' when it is in fact NOT.

WRT to 'Westcott-Hort' translations, I've seen convincing arguments both 'pro' and 'con', but haven't yet pursued the argument enough to make a categorical decision about that collection of translations for myself.

My sense is that what constitutes a 'good' translation' is one that is 'literal' (as much as possible), and employs (or at least consults) all textual variants, using conservative scholarship to resolve tension between variant traditions. Any translation that specifically fails to consult some particular textual variant simply because of its origin, without sufficient scholarly reason for rejection, is suspect in my books.

I'm currently hoping for a newer conservative literal translation that includes weighted consideration of the Dead Sea Scrolls against other textual variants, to move ahead what exists in terms of available English translations.

(Incidentally, would you consider ESV, for example, a Westcott-Hort translation since it derived from the RSV which derived from the English Revised Version that Westcott / Hort translated?)

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Ekklesia Wrote:WRT to 'Westcott-Hort' translations, I've seen convincing arguments both 'pro' and 'con', but haven't yet pursued the argument enough to make a categorical decision about that collection of translations for myself.

The more you study and understand the Hortian system, the easier it is to see the 'con'.

Ekklesia Wrote:(Incidentally, would you consider ESV, for example, a Westcott-Hort translation since it derived from the RSV which derived from the English Revised Version that Westcott / Hort translated?)

Definitely, the modern versions are invariably translated from the eclectic Nestle-Aland text, which is warmed over Hort. NAS, NIV, TNIV, Holman, ESV etc. (The NKJV has problems but the underlying text is reasonable.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery