Replace phrases that resonate with meaning with politically correct twaddle.
For example, the Common English Bible (CEB) renders “Son of Man” “Human One” in the interests of removing exclusive language.
If that were not enough to recommend avoiding the CEB, the Anglican Church of Canada is considering adding it to its list of approved translations.
After you read this explanation about Son of Man you might modify the assumption that the issue is a matter of exclusive language.
http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Connect/Blog/ViewBlog/tabid/209/ArticleId/13/From-Son-of-Man-to-Human-One-13.aspx
Thanks Paul, that’s interesting. The article you reference says:
This seems a little odd since, if Biblical scholars find themselves in “a rare example of consensus”, why do the Biblical scholars involved in the ESV, AMP, KJV, MSG, NIV, RSV, NLT, NLTse all use “Son of Man”?
Also, in the FAQ for the CEB, there is a section that explains:
So the translation does its best avoid exclusive language; this seems to me to imply that, as I originally stated, the expurgating of “Son of Man” is a result of “gender-inclusion”.
All that is fine by me since I don’t have to buy or use your translation, but it seems a little disingenuous to try to maintain that the translation is the way it is in the interest of accuracy alone when you yourself said:
Making a “bridge between conservatives, moderates and liberals” may seem like a good idea on the face of it but, since it sets “inclusion” above just about everything else, it is itself an intrinsically liberal exercise; you will note that it didn’t work too well for Rowan Williams.
So can Adam and Eve, Joseph and Mary be interchanged?
from the CEB, emphasis added
God saw everything he had made: it was supremely good (note small h)
A record of the ancestors of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham:
The capital He is Victorian. I can’t think of a single Bible translation that uses it.
The only translation I have that capitalises the “h” in “he” when referring to God is the Amplified Version.
If a translation capitalizes the H when referring to God that means:
* that the translators are adding something not in the original which does NOT capitalize in such cases
* the translators decide when “he” refers to God and when it does not. While most cases are obvious, there are a handful where the practice could mislead the reader. So, for me, capitalizing he puts too much power in the hands of the transltors.
In reviewing the links I have concluded that the people who put together this piece of trash were more concerned with political correctness than with an accurate English version of God’s Holy Bible. They dress their arguments rather finely, but it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This book is an abomination, and like the minority text that was found in a monestary at the foot of Mount Sinai it also belongs in the trash.
Check out this website:
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/kingjamesbible.asp
It has some very interesting things to say.
Oh dear. That’s not Jack Chick, is it? He’s a bit of a wingnut…. He thinks that the pope is the antichrist, just for starters.
Ways to mangle a Bible translation – the real version
* Stick to outdated language, never let any key phrase be updated, even for hundreds of years
* Translate so that those who already read and understand the Bible will be happy and ignore everyone else
* Translate in traditional ways so that the power of the teacher to explain is enhanced at the expense of the hearer figuring it out for himself
* Cater to the crowd who are more concerned about a translation not being politically correct than they are about if it actually communicates
The key word is “translate”. What this version does in a number of places is pick one of a number of possible interpretations, apparently without indicating this is what it’s doing, to the exclusion of others. In my judgement, if the Hebrew or Greek is ambiguous, a good English translation will cover a similar range of possible meanings rather than selecting just one.
To give just a single example, it renders John 1:5 as “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness doesn’t extinguish the light.”
In Greek, the word translated “extinguish” is a pun that can mean either overcome or understand. The core sense is mastery. “Extinguish” implies vanquish, losing the parallel implication that evil never knew what hit it when Jesus arrived.
A much better translation would be “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not [not “doesn’t” – the tense is wrong] mastered it.”
Um – no. Neither the NIV nor the ESV nor many other easy to understand translations fit that.