Here are a few passages I found interesting in Jason BeDuhn’s Truth in Translation. Overall I recommend it highly, especially for Christians but. by. Jason David BeDuhn. · Rating details · 75 ratings · 13 reviews. Written with the student and interested public in mind, Truth in Translation aims to explain. Jason BeDuhn knows that adding “other” to the text does not show that [ BeDuhn, “Truth in Translation” p] So what exactly are objectors to.

Author: Najora Zulugrel
Country: Honduras
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 12 September 2004
Pages: 98
PDF File Size: 19.2 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.59 Mb
ISBN: 979-3-68628-297-1
Downloads: 25428
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Moogudal

You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. The NWT translation of John 1: Among other things, that would include accurate English definitions of biblical words.

A comprehensive review of Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn.

BeDuhn seems to work from a basis of absolute neutrality on basic fundamentals of the faith such as the deity of Jesus Christ. On what basis do jxson make such charges? The Origins of Modern English Bibles. The editors of the NWT are making a conjectural emendation when they replace kurioswhich would be translated “Lord,” with “Jehovah.

But it is difficult to jawon and I am not giving it as a serious suggestion. Though I do not agree with all of his examples. Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite.

But the selection of passages has not been arbitrary. Those people who are interested in studying the Bible, especially the New Testament, should read this book. What Bible translation should one consider the accurate one? We are looking at John 1: In the interests geduhn reaching the broadest possible audience with jadon message, the New Testament authors use universal titles such as “God” and “Lord,” rather than the specifically Jewish name for God, which Jews themselves did not want spoken aloud, anyway.

They were quoting Old Testament passages which could be understood only of Jehovah Yahweh Himself, and then applying those same attributes or prerogatives directly to Jesus. Of course, this does not permit improper translation of personal pronouns and the like.

The teaching point of this chapter is to show that the choice of English words used to translate a passage must come from the meaning of the Greek words within the passage. However, the author’s sentence must be taken in the greater context of the Appendix as a whole. Quoted from Truth in Translation: This will include the added words which BeDuhn has italicized.


BeDuhn’s argument regarding relative and demonstrative pronouns is considerably stronger in categorizing the bias of the translations he evaluated.

Thanks for telling us about the problem. I felt that BeDuhn’s understanding and awareness of the modern debate on translations, at least within Christian Fundamentalism, was lacking. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. But if in such cases they sometimes use “Jehovah” and sometimes revert to “Lord,” then they are interpreting the reference of the translatiin author.

“Truth in Translation” by Jason DeBuhn FREE Download

As a result, among the popular-selling Bibles, it is the other translations that are the least flawed and bias. At the time, the books of what became the New Testament, except for Paul’s letters, had not been written.

They were doing it with narrative. As a reader, we are free to accept, modify or reject tranelation point of view, but there is still much he can teach each of us in this final area also.

If the description is of individuals around the throne of God, and they are described as singing praise, we as readers of that translation will understand that their obeisance includes adoration.

The other translations, which along with the NAB do not indicate additions to the text in any way, slip interpretations and glosses into the text. They have resorted to interpretation rather than mere translation. This middle theoswe are left to conclude, is not exactly the same thing as the “God” of 1: Glad I read it.

They simply could not translate many of the verses as “Lord” without verifying the deity of Jesus. The interpretation of John 1: But the name never appears in any Greek manuscript of any book of the New Testament.

Check out the top books of the year on our page Best Books of Because Paul did not make this qualification, neither is the translator at liberty to do so. That was the sense of the early assertion that Jesus was “of the same substance” as the Father. Just like in life, being in the majority doesn’t equal being in the right. Betti rated it liked it Aug 04, These “J texts” are mostly.


It has been driven mostly by an idea of where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages which are frequently cited as having great theological importance, the verses that are claimed as key foundations for the commitments of belief held by the very people making the translations.

Even when the authors of these books quote the Old Testament, they do so in Greek. The majority of English Bible readers today want a translation which is easy to read and are happy to have the translator interpret the ambiguities as long as it does not upset their theology.

“Truth in Translation” by Jason DeBuhn FREE Download

But in five of the verses. They were used to understanding passages based on reading them in Latin, and this worked its way into their reading of the same passages in Greek.

However, it is not a new argument. We want to be “scientific” and base our lives on verifiable information. The same argument applies to the New World Translation ‘s use of “[other]” in Philippians 2: Nonetheless, because this second level involves considerably more subjective material, all of us as readers have the responsibility of cautiously weighing his comments before reaching our final conclusion.

I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work.

BeDuhn’s selection of passages to consider demonstrates a certain bias.