11-25-2015, 07:21 PM
I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war. Besides, I'm sure the things I've noticed are not going to be new to anyone on this forum.
The translator of one popular version explained to me his view that the personage of Jesus Christ originated from the Father as His spoken word at the point when time began - that there's no such thing as a "trinity". That's pretty important to know if you are reading that version.
The translator of another recent version explained to me that there's no such concept as "preparation day" in the Crucifixion narrative and uses "Friday" in all instances when that is not the literal meaning in aramaic. He admitted that he is not interested in researching local traditions of the time or other works in the same language. That's pretty important to know because you'll never have the option of a Wednesday Passover using that version and if you didn't know better, you'd assume that the original aramaic said that.
Some other translations which are blatant plagiarisms of the work by others I just don't want to support or even consider whatsoever. They've disqualified themselves by their actions.
The first thing I've come across with Norton is his use of "immerse" wherever "baptize" has been used in other translations. There's no criticism implied but just an observation. Of course, now that I know he was a Strict Baptist, I wouldn't expect anything different from him.
The translator of one popular version explained to me his view that the personage of Jesus Christ originated from the Father as His spoken word at the point when time began - that there's no such thing as a "trinity". That's pretty important to know if you are reading that version.
The translator of another recent version explained to me that there's no such concept as "preparation day" in the Crucifixion narrative and uses "Friday" in all instances when that is not the literal meaning in aramaic. He admitted that he is not interested in researching local traditions of the time or other works in the same language. That's pretty important to know because you'll never have the option of a Wednesday Passover using that version and if you didn't know better, you'd assume that the original aramaic said that.
Some other translations which are blatant plagiarisms of the work by others I just don't want to support or even consider whatsoever. They've disqualified themselves by their actions.
The first thing I've come across with Norton is his use of "immerse" wherever "baptize" has been used in other translations. There's no criticism implied but just an observation. Of course, now that I know he was a Strict Baptist, I wouldn't expect anything different from him.