Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Translation
what are the bible translations that are aproved?
NESS<><
NESS<><
Comments
what are the bible translations that are aproved?
NESS<><
I take it that you are speaking about English.
Well in general, upon the comments of our Pope Shenouda III, NKJV is mainly.
NIV comes second just because of clear to the language, but not fully because there are just missing verses that are omitted in it.
NRS or even RS comes next just for the closeness of it to the Septuagint, which our COptic Bible is translated from. Also for the fact that it does have the detrucanonical books, atleast most of them.
So I'm guessing we should stick to the Orthodox Study Bible because of its translations? It has the detrucanonical books that are usually missing. The New Testament is from the New King James Version and the Old Testament is from the Septuagint! I am finally getting one this week!
now i was told by some people that a true orthodox does not use that bible is this true?
NESS<><
So I'm guessing we should stick to the Orthodox Study Bible because of its translations? It has the detrucanonical books that are usually missing. The New Testament is from the New King James Version and the Old Testament is from the Septuagint! I am finally getting one this week!
not really. I am not saying that it's not a good translation.....it is. it's just that it's not yet fully supported by our Coptic Church, or even, as i have read, the Greek Orthodox Church herself.
Actually i was surprised to see some of specific chapters in the Bible are omitted in that bible....i just discovered that Malachi 4 is just not in the Bible. I am not saying they "choose" to not put, i think it's just their source of the Septuagint didn't have it.
[quote author=NESS55 link=topic=7300.msg96782#msg96782 date=1225928902]
now i was told by some people that a true orthodox does not use that bible is this true?
i wouldn't go that extreme and say that. TOOO GENERAL of a statement. that is an official respected translation.
im just asking cuz some people seem vary upset they said that the study notes were vary Protestant and vary basic...
personaly i think i would like to own one but im not sure about it you know like im not sure if it is worth the investment
do u hapen to know the reasons why it is not being accepted by the church?
NESS<><
so your not bothered by the fact that it is put out by a Protestant publisher?
im just asking cuz some people seem vary upset they said that the study notes were vary Protestant and vary basic...
personaly i think i would like to own one but im not sure about it you know like im not sure if it is worth the investment
with all do respect, who ever tells you this just doesn't know what he's talking about. ALL the translation i listed from my first post are ALL translated by protestants and published by ones, which is mainly Thomas Nelson. publishing is not a problem but translating is. and since the church is just not rich enough to publish Her own Bible, we deal with out we have. and the Church choose the best to just be NKJV.
The Church cares about the accuracy of the translation to the source text, and the source language itself. Also the BIBLE text ITSELF, not all of those extra things that the publisher presents with the book. And that is truly what important.
I don't think you can fit ALL the Bible commentaries so why try to just fill books with words. like let's think about it...our church fathers have TONS of huge and long books, being commentaries about the Bible for only most of it, NOT ALL. You think you can fit all that in one book, i doubt. maybe in one system online or computer as nowadays, but just not in a published written form.
So buying a Bible for it's commentaries or extra characteristic other then the Bible text, i consider, worthless.
But of course, it's your choice. Well NO specific reasons YET. The book just came out and is still new. I know ppl who don't even know about the book yet. So it's just that no one payed any attention to it yet. Don't forget that i said it's not "fully" excepted yet, meaning that it;s just not reviewed as much, not used as much yet to maybe check for errors. But again, it's a good Bible translation, referring to it's source that is announced.
now may i tell you what i use and why?
i use the NET and in that the translators have taken the Greek Hebrew and Aramaic texts and translated them then they give a defence for the translation why they translated the words the way they did you can find the NET on line i have a NKJV and read it often but then i came accrost this bible and i realy like it do you think that this bible will ever be accepted by the Coptic Church and am i condemed for using this bible? note that it does not have the other books you speak of
NESS<><
yes thankyou u have as always been vary helpful
now may i tell you what i use and why?
i use the NET and in that the translators have taken the Greek Hebrew and Aramaic texts and translated them then they give a defence for the translation why they translated the words the way they did you can find the NET on line i have a NKJV and read it often but then i came accrost this bible and i realy like it do you think that this bible will ever be accepted by the Coptic Church and am i condemed for using this bible? note that it does not have the other books you speak of
when you ask the question are you referring to that NET Bible or the orthodox study bible?
btw, i looked at the bible ur talking about, i think it's more of the "NEXT Bible" right. this right, http://net.bible.org ?
is so, i read part of John 1:1. I am not liken how the capitalization are not set right, referring to GOD (Any Persons of the Trinity). Also, from reading only 2 or 3 comments about the translations, that there is more or a personal opinion in translation and what is meant. which don;t get me wrong, is necessarily....but not that specific. because now you are not as accurate with the translation since your putting your own understanding. of source this is just ME, from reading just some very small verses, compared to the whole Bible. (there is noo translation of psalm 151....one of my favorite)
personally i own a hard copy and in that they give me like the grk word and a literal translation and that is why i like it b/c i cant read grk and so like they talk about the sentence structure so I think it is scholarly and accurate to the original texts but I understand how someone would think that there were some opinions and that would admittedly be a fault.!
Discussions like these I love however it is vary hard to come down to any reasonable conclusion b/c there are so many different interpretations (ever translation is and interpretation of the Holy Scripture, this is the 3rd hermeneutic principal) unfortunately I do not know the hearts of the men who come up with such wondrous work and scholarship and I think ultimately it is up to Gods divine will that he gave me this bible (and truly how I got this bible is a story in of itself it was given to me) and I have something to learn from it
I think it is important that the Holy Scriptures are not interpreted by you, you are interpreted by the Holy Scripture. Gods Divine Word tell you whether you are in line with its teachings or not! Amen?!
NESS<><