Split-off thread: Bible translations for study

[Littlejoe]

No.


Yes, he is. I have no problem with Gordon Fee opining on the New Testament text.

IIRC, in their introduction, they made the claim that the book was truly a collaboration and they wrote it as one voice. But in reality, each of them took the "active" role when writing about their respective area of expertise. So, though the words here are "we" it was most likely Gordon Fee opining the opinion for the two of them. (I realize you wouldn't have known that unless you had read the introduction to the book.)

Ok, I was able to find the quote:

Source: Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" - Introduction pg. 19

"Each author is responsible for those chapters that fall within his area of specialty. Thus, Professor Fee wrote chapters 1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 13. Professor Stuart wrote chapters 5 and 9 to 12. Although each author had considerable input into the other's chapters, and although we cosider the book to be a truly joint effort, the careful reader will also observe that each author has his own style and manner of presentation."

© Copyright Original Source

My previous quote is found in chapter 2, which was written by Fee.

[One Bad Pig]

Ok, thanks.

[Jesse]

What do you mean by "known to be truly faulty?" I'm assuming that would include something like, say, the New World Translation, which uses the word "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament despite the fact that this word is never utilized in the Greek (amongst other questionable translation choices). However, the KJV's New Testament was based upon a tiny, incomplete, and likely inaccurate set of Greek manuscripts; I would certainly consider that to be "truly faulty" (though certainly not due to any intentional or deliberate drive of the translators).

I meant only about those translations that most people are told to be cautious of (The Message, Word on the Street). Even though the KJV may be based on Textus Receptus, I still find it historically interesting and useful. That is why I don't see a need for translation debates. Hey, maybe even the ones I wouldn't touch have a little something for it's reader. But I could be wrong.