So here are the verses I look at to check whether a Bible translation is a good one:
These are mostly in the NT, but with regard to the OT, I don't want a Bible to minimize the phrase "Son of Man" so for me a Bible cannot render "son of man" or even "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7:13 as something like "human being" - that's a paraphrase and while it may convey the correct meaning for SOME OT passages, it does not convey the correct meaning for all of them, and you lose the connection to Jesus' own self-identification as the Son of Man in the NT, especially in Matthew 16:13-15.
Matthew 6:7 - better not say "vain repetition" or imply that repeated prayers are bad - Jesus was criticizing going on and on extemporaneously, not memorized prayers. The word "vain" is nowhere in the Greek!
1 Cor 11:2, and 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6 - better not render the word "teachings" just to avoid the positive connotation for tradition(s), especially if Col 2:8, which has a negative connotation (human traditions) is the only one rendered "tradition" - it's the same Greek word!
Phil 2:6-7 - better not say that he "made himself nothing"
2 Tim 3:16 - better not say that Scripture is "sufficient" as if to imply you don't need tradition or to promote "sola scriptura"
James 5:16 - better not say "fervent prayer" - there is no qualifier in there modifying prayer - the modifier is for the person, it's the prayer of a righteous person that is effective
And the bonus extra credit test verse - any NT passage that talks about the Holy Spirit - even though the pronoun is neuter, that's only because the word PNEUMA is neuter, but the translation should refer to the Holy Spirit as HE, not "it" which depersonalizes the Spirit. And especially Romans 8:28 should say, "the Spirit himself" not "the Spirit itself" or "the same Spirit" or anything like that.
So with all that in mind, I think that this NRSV-2CE may actually be the ONLY Bible translation I know of that gets them all right!
Dear friends - Please take 10 minutes to watch this personal update from me:
I mentioned in The Journey that I wrote a song based on Isaiah 2, which is one of my favorite OT passages:
In days to come, the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest mountain, and raised above the hills.
All nations shall stream toward it. Many peoples shall come and say:
“Come, let us go up to the Lord’s mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths.” For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again. House of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!
I hope you like the song!
that assumes those people who left Jesus in John 6 understood what he was saying, and that if he had thought they misunderstood he would have corrected them before letting them walk away - make sure to watch the latest installment of The Journey.
Spoiler alert - that's not at all what the Church fathers say about it, and the more I think about it, I think that argument (which I have used) opens us up to some logical fallacies - or at least ignores the obvious fact that people misunderstood Jesus all the time, and he didn't go chasing after them to make sure they understood. Turns out that understanding is not the most important thing here!
I would love to know what you think after you listen to session # 103.
