What declension did they add? Also, how did they manage that? After all, the book is already written and it was written in the Greek of its time.
For both those editions, Exodus 21:22 says “miscarriage” and labels it a property crime. Impressive honesty. I’m guessing that this word of God is not kosher for some versions of Christianity today.
I’m normally all for the newer translations, but this is one trend that bugs me. The actual original word used here is sal-ma-wet, which does indeed mean darkness. But it uses the same root word as the word for death. I don’t agree with the trend to ignore that aspect because of “context.” You want to keep the full imagery when dealing with poetry. The KJV did well to convey both.
Granted, the term “valley of the shadow of death” has since taken on additional meaning that isn’t quite what was intended*, so I wouldn’t mind something like “Even as a I walk through the valley of deathly darkness…” But, still, I don’t see any reason to remove that bit of imagery
*The understanding as I grew up was that you were walking through a valley with death on either side of you–i.e. the shadow of death. So it makes sense to make it clear it’s not a shadow of death, but a valley that is deathly dark.
Sorry, I misremembered. It wasn’t a declension, but a tense. I don’t seem to find a reference at hand to what they called it, but it was a matter of adding “beginning to” or “started doing” to phrases where the Greek didn’t call for it. More problems arise, not the least of which is the use of the name Jehovah in the NT where it never appears in the Greek.
Dr. Ron Rhodes, who wrote “Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah Witnesses,” stated:
“The New World translation is an incredibly biased translation. Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World translation, concluded the translation ‘has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation…It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly.’ British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, ‘from the beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated.’ Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is ‘an insult to the Word of God.’”
Dr. Julius Manti, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World translation “a shocking mistranslation.” Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World translation “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” Dr. William Barclay concluded that “the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
It is highly revealing that the Watchtower Society has always resisted efforts to identify members of the New World Translation committee. The claim was they preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the credit and glory for this translation. However, as former Jehovah witness David Reed notes, “an unbiased observer will quickly note that such anonymity also shields the translators from any blame for errors or distortions in their renderings. And it prevents scholars from checking their credentials.”
The Watchtower Society must have been utterly embarrassed when the names of the translators of the New World translation were made known to the public. The reason for concern was the translation committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever (they had only a high school education)[1]. The Fifth, Fred W. Franz, claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburg Scotland he failed a simple Hebrew test.
Actually, there’s over 500 English translations. Here’s a list.
Wow that’s a long list! And at least 17 different revisions of the King James Version.
Which itself was a revision of the Bishop’s Bible, which was a revision of Coverdale’s Bible, which was Tyndale’s New Testament plus Coverdale’s translation of the Old Testament.
Yes, i think that’s a good idea. Moving it now…
I selected them only because they are based on updated scholarship.
I also have a copy of the JPS Tanach on my phone, and tend to use it when i want to grab a quote. But i also like the NRSV, and when I’m arguing with evangelicals i often take a peek at how the NIV and KJV handled a passage.
I own a number of hardcopy bibles.
Nice. If I like the translation, an ebook might be good, too.
I haven’t bought a new Bible for over a decade, but I have a general question: Do all of these versions normally get printed as “Red Letter” versions - the words of Jesus printed in red? It seems very common; is it a requirement or recommendation for any versions that it be printed as Red Letter.
The first non-KJV Bible I bought was the newly released Good News version in the 1970s. My small town had a tiny bookstore, run by a local teacher and his wife. He didn’t know me well, but when he saw me buying a Bible, he offered me a part-time job on the spot. I read that Bible all through college, from beginning to end (it was personal goal at the time). Now I view it as a little too simplistic, but I find some of the later versions to be more clunky, especially as church readings.
Nope.
Doing a quick search on Amazon, several different translations are available in “red letter” editions, but not all of them.
The vast majority of Bibles I’ve seen personally did not have this feature. The ones that do tend to be the fancy ones with leather covers.
Well, the JPS (Jewish publication society) version doesn’t include any of the parts that have words of Jesus. 
Then how can you tell whether they’re in red or not?
In fact, every word attributed to Jesus IS in red.
In all seriousness, i own several bibles, and one of them is a “red letter edition”. But it’s not one of the modern scholarly ones. I think it’s a KJV.
I don’t have any red letter bibles. I own several hard copies in different translations, including the KJV. I like to compare the translations.
There was one place, I’m pretty sure it was in the NT, where there was clearly a difference. I don’t recall it off-hand, but it was something like the number of something was different, like, ‘X had 3 thingamajiggers’ in one translation, and ‘X had 7 thingamajiggers’ in another translation.
Clearly, 3 and 7 are inconsistent, in the logical definition of inconsistent — both statements cannot be true at the same time. Does this happen in several places?
Does that h
My dad had a parallel translation on his shelf, which had KJV and a couple of other translations side-by-side. It wasn’t something he used, and I always thought it was a fairly uninteresting publication.
He also had a ‘harmony of the gospels’: I don’t know how often that got used, but it was in the prime collection, not somewhere on a back shelf.
My grandfather had a Greek/ English parallel text, but I think that was for reference rather than ordinary use. He was a minister.