I grew up with The King James version of The Bible. In fact, to my dad, there was no other
Bible. Anything else (in his
opinion) fell into the category of ‘adding to’ or ‘taking away from’ God’s
Word.
With regard to the Old Testament, it made no difference to him that later translations used
more ancient texts for comparison – for it wasn’t until +-1967 that scholars
were able to accumulate more than a few fragments of the most ancient Scripture
fragments ever found, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (initially discovered in
+-1947, but the area of Qumran was under Jordan rule at that point). Once there was access to studying the
scrolls, there was an opportunity to translate with greater accuracy.
In addition to the age of the texts used, there is the issue
of the challenge of accurately translating the Bible into modern language that
purports to convey what the original texts intended. For instance, I have been told that a given word may have
+-16 different words that could be used in translation – and certainly, some of them give a
slightly different tone to the meaning.
Those same issues carry over to the progression in translation of the New Testament. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, as it was the universal language of the day; but the spoken language of Jesus' time was Aramaic, so what he stated was often in Aramaic - and translated to Greek when it was recorded. Language, inflection, understanding, translation...all leave space for varying interpretation....
Those same issues carry over to the progression in translation of the New Testament. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, as it was the universal language of the day; but the spoken language of Jesus' time was Aramaic, so what he stated was often in Aramaic - and translated to Greek when it was recorded. Language, inflection, understanding, translation...all leave space for varying interpretation....
So – the point of this is, I have been immersed in
studying the book of James; and in looking at parallel versions, most are
clear, but one verse is definitely not.
Please note the differences in the various translations that follow.
James 4:5 KJV
Do you think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit
that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
James 4:5 NIV 1984
Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the
spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?
James 4:5 NIV 2011
Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he
jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?
James 4:5 CEB
Or do you suppose that scripture is meaningless? Doesn’t God long for our faithfulness
in the life he has given to us?
James 4:5 ESV
Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the scripture
says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?
Yaakov 4:5 (OJB)
Or do you think that in vain the Kitvei Hakodesh attests
that Hashem yearns jealously over the Ruach Hakodesh He causes to dwell in
us?
James 4:5 (WE)
The holy writings say, ‘God gave his spirit to live in
us. And that Spirit wants us for
himself.’ Do you think this means
nothing?
I prefer the clarification in the ESV – but find as a whole
the various texts provide a complement to each other. It just happens that in this specific verse, the King James
isn’t particularly clear., so I am grateful for reading the verse in other
texts, which helps me gain a much better picture of what was intended.
My take away: I love that God is possessive and protective of His Spirit within us. When God is referred to as a jealous God - - this is the area of 'jealousy' referenced. He zealously and jealously protects His Spirit within us - - Christ in you, the hope of glory!!!!!
My take away: I love that God is possessive and protective of His Spirit within us. When God is referred to as a jealous God - - this is the area of 'jealousy' referenced. He zealously and jealously protects His Spirit within us - - Christ in you, the hope of glory!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment