For example, in John 1:1 they translate "the word was a god" instead of the more common "the word was God." This isn't technically incorrect, but I've never in my life seen anyone translate that passage in that way, and I have some decent experience dealing with the Greek of that passage. The only thing I know about the NWT is they read the Greek in ways few scholars would, actively changing it in some ways. Most translations are going to have some kind of theological bias (like reading Jesus into the Old Testament in sneaky ways), but the NRSV limits this more than many (imo). The NASB is more literal, but that poses its own problems. I'd recommend something like The Text of the New Testament by Kurt & Barbara Aland to get a good look behind the curtain on how we do it.Īs far as best translations go, I can only say that the NRSV is the academic standard, though obviously not perfect. I think it says something when even Philip Comfort, a relatively famous conservative apologist, endorses these kinds of critical editions. ![]() ![]() Their original texts weren't as good as what we have now, but the modern academic standard (Nestle-Aland 28) uses much the same methodological approach. Basically, it pioneered a new paradigm of NT criticism that has proven to be very fruitful. ![]() Without knowing much about the NWT (other than the surprisingly prevalent presence on reddit), I can say a few things about WH.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |