The NIV, Paul and N.T. Wright

[Benjamin Burch]

My favorite former Lutheran Pastor, current scholar, often translates it that way and does a very good job explaining why. "young woman" that is not "true that". I don't think it makes a bit of difference to the Gospel either way, its still good news --- and oh yeah, I'm still an "inerrant"

What I meant was that for many, that is a good enough reason.

Also, I would suggest, as a historiographical study as to that particular translation issue, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies - Michael C. Legaspi.

Jewish and Modern scholars who insist on "young woman" do so through the Hebrew text. Luke, and early Christians, were reading from the Greek LXX. Which version is "Scripture"? How do we make that determination?

Well, that only really became an issue with the Renaissance and the modern university.

[Dan Henderson]

What I meant was that for many, that is a good enough reason.

Also, I would suggest, as a historiographical study as to that particular translation issue, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies - Michael C. Legaspi.

Jewish and Modern scholars who insist on "young woman" do so through the Hebrew text. Luke, and early Christians, were reading from the Greek LXX. Which version is "Scripture"? How do we make that determination?

Well, that only really became an issue with the Renaissance and the modern university.

I would say that when evaluating the 1611 translation, politics aside, that you should evaluate it in the terms of 1611. That is, transport yourself as best you can, use the texts available to them, their language and understanding, then tell me which would be a better choice in conveying the idea "virgin" or "young woman". I don't know the answer to this, I just think it would be a good exercise and I can't pull it off. I get the impression that many of the more modern translations were hobbled by the aparent gold-standard of the 1611 KJV Authorized, God-Breathed, if it was good enough for Jesus to read from, its good enough for me, Bible.

I would say that the "one" that is scripture is the "one" that conveys the Gospel message, so my answer is "Yes"

[Benjamin Burch]

I would say that when evaluating the 1611 translation, politics aside, that you should evaluate it in the terms of 1611. That is, transport yourself as best you can, use the texts available to them, their language and understanding, then tell me which would be a better choice in conveying the idea "virgin" or "young woman". I don't know the answer to this, I just think it would be a good exercise and I can't pull it off. I get the impression that many of the more modern translations were hobbled by the aparent gold-standard of the 1611 KJV Authorized, God-Breathed, if it was good enough for Jesus to read from, its good enough for me, Bible.

Well, my point is more, "what is Scripture" and what constitutes Scripture?

How do we make that judgment? On what grounds?

Essentially, the Hebrew Bible and the Greek LXX say different things in this regard. One uses an ambiguous "young woman" which, in the context, was not expected to be a "virgin." Then, we have the LXX, which uses a greek word which unambiguously means "virgin."

Luke chose to read the LXX. Does that make the LXX Scripture? The Early Christians, and the RCC (up until about 1800) thought so. Well, in Protestant Christianity - as well as the Modern, Academic discipline of Biblical Studies - we have chosen to use the Hebrew text. Thus, we're stuck with some problems. Why is one "scripture" and the other not?

Again, what constitutes "Scripture." I think the study by Legaspi is a phenomenal read for anyone interested in such questions.

[Dan Henderson]

Thanks Benjamin,

I know about these differences from both my father and my Wed night teacher (Former Lutheran up-to-date scholar), but I know none of this from my own study. Everything you wrote is consistent with what both have taught me regarding NT texts.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

What are some thoughts on the New English Translation (NET)? I cannot comment on the quiality of the translation, but I am impressed with the copious amount of notes provided by the translators containing such information as their justification and methods regarding their word/phrase choices when translating. It seems to transend the NIV notes in that the NET notes focus more on why and how rather than just what.

I agree with you that the notes are really helpful. From reading along with the NET version in my 1 Corinthians class, it doesn't look like it is particularly better than any of the rest, and for me the number of notes detracts from devotional reading or reading long sections, but for studying, the notes can bring some good clarification. Obviously, a commentary would have much greater detail as to possible translations and reasons for making a certain choice, but at least it goes into more depth than most. And again, the site I posted above (net.bible.org) has the handy parallel feature, so you can easily see how the translation compares to others.

I don't know much about particular points of translation that have been controversial.