Why are English Bible translations so bad??

It seems to be a questin of two things: reading the Bible regularly; and studying. Studying takes time. It is difficult to know which commentaries to rely on; if it is something by the Church Fathers, it may not always be readily available in America. Not for everyone. And there is the question of proper interpretation. A case in point, Bible prophecy. Eschatology, Bible prophecy is often wildly misunderstood by Evangelical Protestants. A case in point, what is the proper, Orthodox understanding of Daniel 9:27? Is it talking about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, in Daniel 9:27? The true answer is yes. As far as I have studiedthis. But disensationalist evangelicalism says just the exact opposite for Daniel 9:27, and says it is talking of the \"Antichrist.\" You see, it isvery very important how one understands particular passages of Scripture. Daniel is a book, like Revelation, that is hard to be understood. Searching through the best of the conservative Protestant and Roman Catholic commentaries points the way how toward Orthodoxy; where the Westerners misinterpret and misapply Scriptures, the Orthodox Church steps in and corrects the errors of the Western churches. The Church tells us how to make sense of the Bible we read; we should be cautious before we make up our minds on given parts of Scripture; we need to find Orthodox sources to tell us what the Scriptures teach. Take care. Eventually, I hope to read from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture when I do a further study of the Gospels and the New Testament. And these new books from InterVarsity Press should help Orthodox Christians gain access to the Church Fathers of East and West on the Bible. God bless us, everyone.

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture is NOT a good source for detailed analysis since it is a sampling of Church Fathers, including Western - sometimes non-Orthodox, Fathers, so you have to understand it should be used as a starting point for overall frame and not detailed analysis.

The Orthodox Study Bible seems perfectly fine - it covers the errors or nuances of translation in the footnotes - but what much does that matter anyway? Christ continually reprimanded the pharisees on their adherence to the letter of the law, and not the spirit... I agree with the comment above, if you\'re not living the Gospel, then you might as well be reading Harry Potter.

If the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, is just a starting point, what is step two? I am not at step 1, reading this commentary, but I could at least read the Eastern fathers in it, and avoid placing too much confidence in the Western fathers, some of whom are not quite reliable. Anyway, does Jurgens\' three volume work represent a good place for starting to read the Church Fathers? I have some of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers volumes in my library, but find them mostly unreadable? Where/how does a layman learn what the Greek Church Fathers taught? Is there any book that explains the consensus of the Orthodox Patristic theology? Take care. PS What is your opinion of the ONT Orthodox New Testament from Holy Apostles Convent Buena Vista, CO, for those of you who have taken time to obtain the ONT and have had time to read from it? This volume does quote the Church Fathers, so wouldn\'t this ONT be a good place to study the Church Fathers comments on the NT? Happy New Year.

I can\'t agree more. Do what your \"bad\" translation tells you to do, and let God judge the translator.

This issue is more complicated than the way many present it. I think that any responsible translation must consult both the Masoretic and Greek texts. That the Masoretic text is older than the Septuagint text is wrong. There are plenty of manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls that share the same reading with the Masoretic text. Similarly, the remaining parts of Origen\'s Hexapla has readings that mirror those of the Masoretic text. At the same time, there are Dead Sea Scrolls that preserve the Hebrew text that the Septuagint translators were using. So there is evidence for both translations, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

It is possible to read the Bible in different ways, some correct, some in erroneous vein. To read the KJV just to find where it is poorly translated is one way to read the Bible, whether that is worthwile or a waste of time. To seek to avoid doctrinal errors is always a good thing; only to read Scripture with a critical eye is good, if it keeps one from believing false doctrines which may be hidden in poor English translations of the Scriptures. Obviously, the NWT New World Translation of Jehovah\'s Witness Watchtower Society is a poor translation, mainly for doctrinal reasons; otherwise, the NWT is wooden and does not read smoothly, even is places where the doctrines are not tampered with. It is possible to read the Bible too much if one misreads it every time. It is not merely a question of quantity of reading, but quality. It would be better to know which passages of Scripture are subject to misinterpretation, such as Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation, and Daniel. One must be careful reading Scripture to avoid misreading Scripture, but Daniel and Revelation are often misread, so merely reading Scripture for the sake of reading it is not the answer. We must have \"some man guide us\", and the men who open the Scriptures to us must be Orthodox Christians; if we read non-Orthodox sources, we must bear in mind whereas and while they do not always misread Scripture, sometimes their reading and interpretation of Scripture passages does not always agree with the mind of the Church, the Orthodox Church. As Westerners, we must become very very cautious before we make any statement as to what the Church teaches, as we are just on the edge of coming into the Orthodox Church, and are not quite there yet (at least this is the case with me). So I can only state what I have read in Orthodox sources, or what I hear from an Orthodox priest or bishop in church on those times when I have occassion to attend Liturgy. Take care. Could we have a top 5 English translations poll here? Would KJV ESV NIV NASB NKJV RSV be among the most widely accepted translations for use by Orthodox Christians ... or are some other versions used in the Orthodox churches in America? Of course the original Greek is used, but which English translations do the parishes use? Besides the KJV.

I disagree with this statement. First, there is always a problem when one says \"the\" LXX. \"The\" LXX can only be posited by taking the huge variety of Greek texts--some with significant differences--to come up with what looks like the oldest text. Second, historically other texts were used by the Orthodox. The Syriac Church, when translating the Peshitta, appear to have used the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Ethiopian Church seems to have canonical books that were not included in early LXX canons. Often, other Orthodox communities believed their own translations to be canonical, e.g., Peshitta, Slavonic Bible, Latin Vulgate.

Your comments about various manuscripts is no different for ANY version since ALL editions today are based upon manuscript fragments. I\'m not suggesting that the MT is not worth reviewing, but we must realize that most if not all english editions, unless they state they are based upon LXX, are MT based which can, without guidance, provide a huge variable in interpretation. I agree the MT is a valuable resource especially when taken WITH the LXX which can be used as an interpretation of the MT, even though it predates it, because the Jews chose particular Greek words to convey the thought they knew was present in the Hebrew. I am thankful for the volumes of Chrysostom homilies on scripture as they can also provide a filter for interpretation. One more comment about contemporary commentary which is back to my earlier point.....scholars seem to favor critical text which eliminates or even includes words or verses that are not present in the lexicon of the Church. Look for example at John 7.53-8.11. Chrysostom\'s manuscript didn\'t have these verses nor did most other Eastern Fathers.

All translations, but not all editions. The standard Hebrew Bible used by scholars is the published version of the manuscript Leningradensis. The new Leiden Peshitta is based on a single manuscript. Every page of the Peshitta project is marked with what manuscripts are consulted, and where variants occur among those manuscripts.

In serious work with the LXX, therefore, I think that one should be upfront about what manuscript(s) one is working from and where. Even Brenton does that to some extent.

I find problematic that that the LXX that is used in the new Orthodox Study Bible is the Rahlfs edition. It is a version of the LXX not based on a single manuscript, but edited 100 years ago from what has become an outdated pool of manuscript resources.

I agree 100% that the MT and the LXX both have to be consulted for any serious Bible work, especially translation. I know that all the Bible translations look at both, though they may have a bias towards the MT in deciding problematic cases, where neither edition seems to be more original.

You people are all obviously more learned on the original texts issue than I am. What I know about the Greek or Hebrew texts is entirely self-taught. I have not studied at a seminary or in an Orthodox Church school setting. My background was decidely Lutheran, with some foray into Assenbies of God Pentecostalism. I learned a lot from philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer, but his views are too limited. Most of our views as individuals are rather limited, but there is something different about the Orthodox. They have a living Orthodoxy, not mere intellectual acumen. Not that they are less educated than the non-Orthodox. But coming to Christ is not merely an academic exerrcise. Nor will we find everything we need merely by reading whatever Bible text or version by ourselves. What is lacking in Western Christendom is an undivided continuous apostolic Christian tradition with apostolic succession and grace-filled Orthodox sacraments. What I still need is sacraments, not merely intellectual understanding of Bible texts. I still have far to go to what is required in becoming Orthodox. But in this open internet forum, there is only so much we can receive anyway, and it is bound to be on the more intellectual side. Take care. PS Can each of you who write to this question tell us which English translations your local Orthodox parish does use, alll debate aside; which Bible versions do your priests and bishops, deacons, readers, read in Divine Liturgy? Do they use the King James Version, with necessary corrections wherever the KJV is in need of Orthodox correction? God bless us all in this New Year. LORD have mercy. On us all.

Every church I\'ve been to uses RSV. Only rarely have I seen a priest correct the lectionary. For example, one corrected the lectionary (from the RSV) where it used Matthew\'s \"Our Father\" in Luke, rather than the variation used in the latter. This was an editing issue, not a translation issue.

I wonder how many Orthodox know how the LXX came to be written. Briefly, King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt was the first great bibliophile; it was he who was largely responsible for compiling the great library at Alexandria. One great work he did not have was the compilation of the Jewish Laws, in other words, the Mosaic texts and the rest of the OT. At the suggestion of his librarian, he exchanged 100,000 Jewish captives for the seventy Jewish scholars (hence \'Septuagint\'--the text of the \"seventy\") from the Holy Land that were to compile the text. We are not sure of the date of the original text, but we do know that Ptolemy Philadelphus\' queen died in 270 BC. I might also add that the great library of the city of Pergamos was added to the library of Alexandria when Marc Antony of Rome purchased it and gave it to Cleopatra as a gift. (BTW, paper and the skill of writing in Pergamos was very advanced; our word \"parchment\" ultimately derives from the word \"Pergamos\".)

Thank you for adding this to the discussion. The full text of the \"Letter of Aristeas,\" which describes the production of the LXX, can be found [url=http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm]here[/url]

I have read this text, that\'s why I added this info. I find it extremely interesting that Aristeas in his letter mentions that he feels that the Jews \"worship the same God we do (meaning Zeus) but they call him by a different name...\" in light of the fact that the Latin name Iuppiter (Jupiter) is a contraction or elision of the two words Deus Pater. It reminds me of what St. Paul said about paganism and those who believed in it, in Romans chapters 1 and 2.