The New Simplified Bible.

There is a new version of the Bible on the market (not another version!). This one is free and it is available online. James R Madsen is the translator and editor of the New Simplified Bible. This new translation of the Bible comes in three different editions:

The Jehovah Version

The New Simplified Bible Jehovah Version is an easy to read Bible Translation that faithfully presents the name Jehovah wherever the Tetragramiton YHWH is found in the Holy Scriptures. This traditional name for the Almighty God of the universe offers a rich and spiritually rewarding Bible reading experience.

The Yahwist Version

The New Simplified Bible Yahwist Version a new and exciting way to read the Holy Scriptures using words similar to the origional text. It contains a number of Hebrew words including Yahoshua in place of the English name Jesus. Words such as "shalom-peace, ahavah-love, shamayim-heaven(s) and eretz-earth. The name Yahowah is offered in representation of the Divine Name. It comes from the Tetragramiton: YHWH transliterated to YaHoWaH. A complete Hebrew Word List is provided.

The LORD Version

The New Simplified Bible LORD Version uses the title LORD where the Hebrew letters for God's name YHWH is in the text. It is important to honor God's divine name. However there are millions of sincere individuals who honestly don't know His name. They only read translations that use the substitute title "the LORD." The New Simplified Bible LORD Version uses the title LORD while injecting the most accepted names for God thru out the publication. It gives the reader an opportunity to become familiar with the Name of God. Try it...you might like it.

The translator offers a disclaimer that his translation of the Bible is not related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses work and ministry and that it is not endorsed by the Watch Tower Society:

The NSB is self-published by the translator. It is not influenced by any Christian denomination or sect. An honest attempt has been made to give you the accurate translation from the original language. The New Simplified Bible is not related to the publishing and preaching work of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed by the Watch Tower Society.

Although the translator makes the disclaimer that his version of the Bible is not related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the New Simplified Bible could be classified as “Jehovah’s Witnesses lite.” Below are two passages from the Gospel of John and the explanation offered by the NSB:

John 1:1 (from The Lord Version)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God.*

Note:

*1:1 Son of God like God: At John 10:33 Jesus was accused of making himself God or a god. The word used here is “theos.” It means: devine, god-like, a god, God. (God-like) (Strong’s G2316)Jesus clearly stated in reply: “Do you say you blaspheme, because I said, I am God’s Son?” He identified himself as the Son of God, not God!

John 1:18

18 No man has ever seen God. The only begotten God-like* one (G2316) who is closest to the Father (in the bosom of the Father) tells us about him. (Psalm 8:5)

Note:

*1:18 only begotten God-like one: The term “begotten God” is found only once in the Holy Scriptures at John 1:18. The phrase comes from the Greek monogenes theos, meaning only born God or god. It can also mean “born from God.” Scripture context proves that God was not begotten or born, his son was. However, because the oldest manuscripts state “monogenes theos” the proper translation must be “begotten god,” “begotten God,” or “begotten God-like one.” In keeping with the context of the entire Bible the New Simplified Bible will not call the Almighty God begotten! The context of John 1:18 shows that it is talking about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Therefore the term “God-like one” has been used.

Below are the same two passages from the Yahwist Version:

John 1:1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Almighty One, and theWord was like the Almighty One

John 1:18

18 No man has ever seen the Almighty One. The only brought forth-Mighty One who is closest to the Father (in the bosom of the Father) tells us about him. (Psalm 8:5)

You can read the New Simplified Bible here.

As I have said before in one or two posts, any translation of the Bible that depends on Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon should be considered suspect. And any translation of the Bible that says that it is not endorsed by the Watch Tower Society should be rejected.

In conclusion, I cannot recommend the New Simplified Bible.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Bible Translation, New Simplified Bible

Defending the Bible: The Conservative Bible Project

James McGrath at Exploring our Matrix has an interesting article about a conservative attempt to rewrite the Bible in order to eliminate liberal interpretations of Biblical texts. James wrote:

[T]here is a Conservative Bible Project underway to "translate" the Bible in a more conservative way that will prevent liberal "misinterpretations" or "misconstruals". Or, to put it another way, the plan is to replace what the text says, which is open to other interpretations than their own, with a rendering that will say what they think the text means and really ought to have said. These "translators", if they are serious, are exalting themselves above the Bible and, from the perspective of conservative Christianity, above God.

James wonders whether Conservapedia, the site that will feature this translation project, is real or just an attempt to parody conservative Christianity. Visit James’s blog and read Translating vs. Rewriting the Bible: The Conservative Bible Project.

If conservative Christians make an effort to rewrite the Bible in order to present a conservative translation as an effort to eliminate liberal interpretation of Biblical texts, then such a translation will violate every hermeneutical principle used by Bible translators in their effort to give the reading public a translation that is faithful to the original intent of the Biblical writer.

A translation of the Bible must translate the Biblical text in the language of the reader without infusing the theological presuppositions of the translators. If a conservative translation changes the meaning of the original text in order to support a theological viewpoint, even when that theological viewpoint reflects Christian orthodoxy, that translation ceases to be a faithful translation.

A case in point has been made by a blog which aims at defending the Bible. In his evaluation of modern translations of the Bible, Dr. Norman Geisler said:

Here’s what you have to keep in mind when you’re looking at translations of the Bible. Who are the people that translated it? Were they biased? Now, obviously the people who translated the Revised Standard Version were biased. These were liberal scholars and when they came to Isaiah 7:14, they said, “Young maiden” instead of “virgin.” Well, it had to refer to virgin because the verse is quoted in Matthew 1:21ff. It says, “A virgin shall conceive.” So it’s a bad translation and it comes out of the bias of the particular translators. Whereas, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version are not done by biased liberal scholars. And another important thing about these translations is they’re done by a committee of several scholars, not just one person ultimately like say, for example, the Living Bible that was done by Ken Taylor. Fine Christian, fine believer, doing it for his children, paraphrased it. But it’s not a literal translation, it’s a paraphrase and often it’s a devotional paraphrase and people get blessed by it. But it’s one person and it’s a paraphrase.

This statement is a good example of what happens when a translator uses theological presupposition to translate a specific text of the Bible. Every person who has studied Hebrew knows that the word ha almah in Isaiah 7:14 means “the young woman” and not “virgin.” The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah.

The King James Version incorrectly translates Isaiah 7:14 as follows: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

It is clear that the King James Version does not represent the correct meaning of Isaiah 7:14. But when theological bias is used to support the statement in the gospel of Matthew 1:22-23, the translator has used his or her translation, incorrect as it is, to defend an important teaching of the church, that is, that Jesus was born of a virgin.

As I have written in a previous post, when Isaiah 7:14 is interpreted historically and sociologically, the translation “a young woman” does not contradict Matthew 1:22-23. Thus, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Revised Standard Version is not biased but correct:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Rather, it is the theological bias that is present in the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version that makes these two translations not faithful to the original text.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Almah, Betulah, Bible Translation, Conservapedia, Isaiah 7:14

The Use of Upper Case in Translations of the Bible

In a recent post on the use of upper case in translating biblical passages, Suzanne McCarthy at Better Bibles Blog wrote:

However, one can see how the choice of whether to use upper case or not could well be doctrinally motivated.

We can’t really have the same experience as those who read this in the original language. Having upper case letters means one thing and not having them means something else.

In her study, she provides examples taken from Judges 9:13, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 2:2, and Isaiah 63:10. In this post, I want to demonstrate that two of Suzanne’s statements are true, that is, “the choice of whether to use upper case or not could well be doctrinally motivated,” and that “having upper case letters means one thing and not having them means something else.”

The use of upper case in English is very common and represents an author’s deliberate effort to communicate a message to the reader. For instance, the word “god” is used to represent a false god while the word “God” is used to represent the God of the Bible. The word “son” is used to designate the offspring of a father or mother while the word “Son” represents Jesus Christ. In the same way, the word “he” is used to designate a man, while the word “He” is used to designate God or Jesus Christ.

This use of upper case to convey a theological message is generally used by Christian writers. For instance, in his book Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), Bruce K. Waltke believes that the Hebrew word for serpent in Genesis 3:1 “functions as a proper name.” He wrote (p. 222): “In Genesis 3:1 the Serpent–with a capital S to represent its uniqueness–brings unaided humanity under its rule.” Thus, the serpent ceases being one of the “beasts of the field which the LORD God had made” to become the incarnation of Satan (p. 265), “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Revelation 12:9).

In the same manner, the “seed of the woman” becomes a reference to Jesus Christ. Waltke asks: “To whom does the ‘seed’ refer?” He answers his own question by saying: “Surely the most satisfactory identification of the ‘seed’ is Jesus Christ and the church” (p. 62). Although Waltke never uses upper case for “seed,” the New King James Version does: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” (Genesis 3:15 NKJ).

These two examples demonstrate that Suzanne’s statement, that the “choice of whether to use upper case or not could well be doctrinally motivated,” is true. The use of upper case in translations of the Bible serves, in many cases, to emphasize a certain theological perspective about a text.

Suzanne’s other statement, that “having upper case letters means one thing and not having them means something else,” can be demonstrated by different translations of Daniel 9:25. Let me illustrate this point by quoting from the King James Version:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times (Daniel 9:25 KJV).

It is clear in this translation from the KJV that the word “Messiah” with upper case is a clear reference to Jesus Christ. In late Judaism, the Messiah was considered to be God’s agent who would bring restoration to Israel. The New Testament used the title and applied it to Christ to designate him as the savior of the world.

There is no doubt that readers of the King James would identify the “Messiah” with Christ. The problem with the KJV’s translation, besides the upper case, is that in Hebrew, however, the word “mashiach” means “the anointed one.” So, to do justice to the Hebrew word, the NIV translates Daniel 9:25 as follows:

Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble (Daniel 9:25 NIV).

The NIV corrects one of the mistakes of the KJV. The NIV correctly translates the word “Messiah” but it keeps the upper case in “Anointed One.” Thus, a reader of the NIV will also have no problem identifying the “Anointed One” with Jesus Christ.

The problem with both the KJV and the NIV is that they use the upper case to show that, in the mind of the translators, the “Messiah” or the “Anointed One” was Jesus Christ. The Revised Standard Version eliminates this problem by eliminating the upper case. The RSV reads as follows:

Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time (Daniel 9:25 RSV).

So, in the RSV, the “Messiah” and the “Anointed One” becomes “an anointed one.” However, another problem with the KJV and the NIV is that in they use the definite article “the” to identify the person referred to in Daniel 9:25. In the KJV that person is “the Messiah.” In the NIV it is “the Anointed One.” In the Old Testament two people were anointed: the priest and the king. By using the definite article, both the KJV and the NIV are saying (indirectly) that the “Messiah” or the “Anointed One” is a king.

However, the definite article does not appear in the Hebrew text and the RSV’s translation reflects this fact: “to the coming of an anointed one.” This means that the “anointed one” of Daniel 9:25 could be either a priest or a king. The proper exegesis of Daniel 9:25 reveals that the “anointed one” in Daniel 9:25 is a priest.

Thus, by using the upper case in Daniel 9:25, the translators of the KJV and the NIV say that the “Anointed One” was Jesus Christ, while the RSV by not using upper case is saying that the one coming could be either a priest or a king.

In conclusion, translators should refrain from using upper case in translating biblical texts from Hebrew into English because the use of upper case in translation of biblical texts infuses a text with a theological meaning that may not be present in the original text. This infusion of meaning becomes in itself an interpretation of the text that then is transmitted to readers who have little or no knowledge of the original language. These readers, in turn, will accept the inference that these theologically infused translations represent the real meaning of the text.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible Translation, Daniel 9:25, Satan, Serpent

Rereading Isaiah 9:1: The Use of Gender Inclusive Language

One difficult issue in Bible translation today is the use of gender inclusive language. The debate is focused on whether the use of inclusive language changes the meaning of the text and misrepresents what the biblical author was trying to communicate.

I am not against the use of inclusive language provided that the translation does not misrepresent the intent of the original text. Word-for-word translation is just not practical because one language does not automatically translate into another language.

A translation of the Bible should be clear and accurate. It should communicate in English precisely what the biblical author was trying to communicate to the primary audience. At times, a good translation may require a little liberty with the text in order to communicate the real message of the original text, but the original intent of the writer must not be changed.

One verse where some translations have chosen to use inclusive language is Isaiah 9:1. However, the use of inclusive language in Isaiah 9:1 has completely changed the original meaning of the text and fails to represent the intent of the message of the writer.

The proper understanding of Isaiah 9:1 requires a brief historical introduction.

When Ahaz became king of Judah in 735 B.C., the nations of the Ancient Near East were dealing with the menace posed by the Assyrian army and the policies of total conquest initiated by Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria.

The Northern Kingdom was not immune to the threat posed by Assyria. When Pekahiah, the son of Menahem, became king in 738, he continued his father's policy of cooperation with Assyria. However, the burden of the tribute paid to Assyria convinced many Israelites that it was time for change. In 737 B.C., Pekahiah was assassinated by Pekah, who was the third man in Pekahiah's war chariot. Pekah had the support of the anti-Assyrian faction in Israel and of those who advocated cooperation with Syria

Pekah came to the throne of Israel in order to foment revolt against Assyria. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, formed an alliance in order to resist Tiglath-pileser. Acting in partnership, Pekah and Rezin turned their efforts to the south, to Judah, hoping to increase the strength, proximity, and size of their coalition.

At first, Jotham and then later, his son Ahaz, king of Judah refused to join the alliance. Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, invaded Judah in order to place on the throne, Tabael (Isaiah 7:6), a man who would favor a joint alliance to fight against Assyria. This was the beginning of the Syro-Ephraimite War.

Aware that his situation was precarious, and against the advice of the prophet Isaiah, Ahaz asked Tiglath-pileser for military help (2 Kings 16:7). Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Assyria. In order to gather the money needed for the tribute, Ahaz took gold and silver from the temple and from the royal treasury ( 2 Kings 16:8).

Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser with the following message: “I am your servant and your son. Come up, and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me” (2 Kings 16:7).

In response to Ahaz's invitation, Tiglath-pileser came to Palestine to help Judah. He conquered Philistia first and then invaded Syria. Tiglath-pileser “marched up against Damascus, and took it, carrying its people captive to Kir, and he killed Rezin” (2 Kings 16:9).

Then, Tiglath-pileser came against Israel, conquered several cities in Galilee and Naphtali and deported many people to Assyria: “In the time of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria” (2 Kings 15:29).

A few years later, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed an oracle recorded in Isaiah 9:1-6 that is a direct reference to the events related to the Syro-Ephraimite War. Although time and space does not allow me to deal with the entire passage (I may do so at a later time), Isaiah 9:1 (the versification is different in the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah 9:1 is 8:23 in the Hebrew Bible) has been translated differently by translators.

“But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish” (Isaiah 9:1 ESV).

“But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish” (Isaiah 9:1 RSV).

“But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish” (Isaiah 9:1 NRSV).

“Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress (Isaiah 9:1 NIV).

These four translations differ on how the first part of verse 1 is translated. The word “her” of the ESV and the RSV refers to the “land.” The word “those” of the NIV and the NRSV refers to the people.

The feminine pronoun in the Hebrew text requires that the “her” be related to the land. The ESV and the RSV say that because of the events related to the war, the land was in distress. The translation of the NIV and the NRSV distort the message of the verse and convey an incorrect impression to the reader by saying that because of the war, the people were in distress.

The translation of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is direct and to the point:
“Nevertheless, the gloom of the distressed land will not be like that of the former times” (Isaiah 9:1).

Why did the NIV and the NRSV choose to change the text and use “those” instead of “her” in translating the pronoun? There are two possible answers:

1. The translators of the NIV and the NRSV understood the land (“her”) to represent the people (“those”). However, this translation disregards the fact that the word “land” in “the land of Zebulun” and “the land of Naphtali” is feminine and is in direct relationship with the pronoun “her.”

2. It is possible that the translators were using gender inclusive language and refused to use the word “her” in the same way they avoided using the word “him” in other texts in the two translations.

I suspect the use of “those” in Isaiah 9:1 came out of a desire to be gender inclusive, but this effort at being gender inclusive completely changes the meaning of the text and does not allow the reader to grasp the real message of the prophet.

In their books, the prophets emphasize that the land suffers because of the sins of the people. Hosea said that because of the sins of the people, “the land mourns” (Hosea 4:3). Because of the sins of the people, the land was defiled and became an abomination (Jeremiah 2:7). The message of Isaiah must be understood in the context of the Syro-Ephraimite War: because of the sins of the people, the land was in distress.

The translation of the NIV and the NRSV is unfortunate. Those who read Isaiah 9:1 in these translations may have compassion for the people who were in distress but they will feel nothing for the land, the real concern of the prophet. And the only reason the reader will be unable to sympathize with the distress of the land is because somewhere a committee decided to be politically correct rather than to convey the real message of the prophet.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible Translation, Inclusive Language, Isaiah 9:1