Bible study

[Guest 2smart4u]

I actually went to a couple of fundie websites for the information.  You always have a comment that you think is funny that isn't but you never address any issues presented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, but I did. The issue is your mental health.

[Guest DingoDave]

I wrote:

The type of 'translation' that comprises the NIV is called 'dynamic equivalence', which is designed to make it easier to read at the expense of textual accuracy.

Bryan responded:

No, not textual accuracy; it is at the expense of literal translation. A literal translation can obscure the meaning for a modern audience.

Only if you’re stuck in the seventh grade!

Please allow me to refresh your memory.

"According to the translators, the text is aimed at seventh-grade reading level. Even people of less than average education or intelligence can understand the language whether they are reading it or hearing it. The footnotes usually indicate where the translators have substituted words. If someone is not using the King James Version, it is most likely he will be using the NIV...Dynamic equivalence is both a benefit and a problem. For deep, scholarly evaluation substitution of words is sometimes a problem, but for the average reader it helps."

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/versions.htm

A literal translation can obscure the meaning of the text? WTF?

Only if you're not really interested in what the author actually wrote.

What's next? Will you try to convince me that throwing mud into a river will give me a clearer view of the riverbed?

You’re having a laugh aren’t you?

[billydee4]

Oh, but I did.  The issue is your mental health.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In what universe is doing research on a subject qualify as a mental illness? By the way, I hate Kool-Aid and my rectum, or anyone else's, has never spoken.

[Strife767]

Oh, but I did.  The issue is your mental health.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care to read the thread title again?

[billydee4]

Fine.  You can start by supporting your implicit assumption that only the NIV renders the verse using the past tense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't find anything in Dingo Dave's posts that assume that. The NIV does not use the past tense. It's the past perfect tense. I noted that I checked thirty versions of the bible and 25 of them used the words "formed" or "made". Among the 25 there were some that were put together by fundies to support the fundie position. They include the good news bible and the message.

Your attempt to avoid the argument by bringing in a non-issue shows the weakness of your argument.

Can you cite any other bible versions that use the past perfect tense?

[Bryan]

Only if you’re stuck in the seventh grade!

Please allow me to refresh your memory.

"According to the translators, the text is aimed at seventh-grade reading level. Even people of less than average education or intelligence can understand the language whether they are reading it or hearing it. The footnotes usually indicate where the translators have substituted words. If someone is not using the King James Version, it is most likely he will be using the NIV...Dynamic equivalence is both a benefit and a problem. For deep, scholarly evaluation substitution of words is sometimes a problem, but for the average reader it helps."

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/versions.htm

A literal translation can obscure the meaning of the text? WTF?

Uh, DingbatDave, your quotation supports what I said.

Newspapers, FYI, are geared toward a fifth-grade reading level. Just like the modern era of political speechwriting.

Only if you're not really interested in what the author actually wrote.

Non sequitur. If the literal rendering produces confusion about the meaning of an idiom or turn of phrase, then dynamic equivalence is a helpful technique in helping the reader understand the intent of the author (regardless of the specific words used).

You routinely see the same thing in translating foreign languages.

An expensive item in English costs "an arm and a leg" while in Spanish it "costs an eye from my face."

Me costó un ojo de la cara.

It cost me an arm and a leg.

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordofthed...2007/02/14.html

What's next? Will you try to convince me that throwing mud into a river will give me a clearer view of the riverbed?

You’re having a laugh aren’t you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I'm laughing at you. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're good at proving it.

Maybe you should assume that people who read the newspaper are in the fifth grade?

[Bryan]

Bryan said: Sure does. It takes it out of the real of Hebrew grammar and into the realm of laymen doing their analysis based on English translations instead of the original languages.

Bryan, the people who made the translations were experts in Hebrew grammar.  I'm sure the hundreds of people who worked on the various versions of the Bible knew a little more than you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right--and you found a number of translations that support what I was saying.

What will you do for an encore? Trip over your own feet?

[billydee4]

Right--and you found a number of translations that support what I was saying.

What will you do for an encore?  Trip over your own feet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Three out of thirty agree with you and they were put together by biblical literalists who had a conservative agenda. I take the scholarship and integrity of the people who worked on the other twenty-five committees much more seriously than yours.

Other than the fact that you say so, why is the NIV version the correct one?

Take your foot out of your mouth and your head out of your ass.

You are such a dick.

[Bryan]

I can't find anything in Dingo Dave's posts that assume that.

Well, you never were the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.

"If the original Hebrew can so easily be translated in the past tense, then why is it that the NIV is the only translation to do so?"

The NIV does not use the past tense.  It's the past perfect tense.

Correct. Point being, a reference to a completed action where the context places the action in the past.

Biblical Hebrew only has two tenses - perfect and imperfect. While the three verb tenses in English are related to time, Biblical Hebrew verb tenses are related to action. The perfect tense is a completed action while the imperfect tense is an incomplete action.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/37_lesson03.html

I noted that I checked thirty versions of the bible and 25 of them used the words "formed" or "made".  Among the 25 there were some that were put together by fundies to support the fundie position.  They include the good news bible and the message.

What about the other five?

Your attempt to avoid the argument by bringing in a non-issue shows the weakness of your argument.

What non-issue do you think I brought up?

Can you cite any other bible versions that use the past perfect tense?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, not off the top of my head. Why would I need to? I'm not arguing on the basis of how many Bible versions use the past perfect tense. I'm arguing based on grammar and context. You and Dingbat are the ones trying to answer the issue by polling Bible translations.

Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present and future tenses like English (modern Hebrew is another story altogether, however). Instead, action is regarded as either complete or incomplete. Incomplete action is referred to as perfect and incomplete action is referred to as imperfect. Generally speaking, the perfect aspect will be translated into English with the English past tense and the imperfect will be translated into English with the English future tense. However, this is only an approximation of the situation, and so there will be times when altogether different tenses will be better in certain circumstances.

http://www.theology.edu/hebrew/hb07.htm

[billydee4]

Right--and you found a number of translations that support what I was saying.

What will you do for an encore?  Trip over your own feet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I found three out of thirty that support your position. All three were put together by fundamentalist biblical literalists. What makes them more authoritive than the twenty-five that do not support your position. Because you say so is not a reason. Take your head out of your ass and come up with a real answer.

[Guest DingoDave]

billydee4 wrote:

I checked thirty versions of the bible. In 25 of them the past tense "formed' or "made" is used.

In one of them, Young's Literal Translation, the present tense "formeth" is used.

One of them, the Douay-Rheims Version, has "having formed".

Three of them read "had formed". The three are the NIV, the English Standard Version, and the God's Word Translation. All three were put together by biblical literalist fundamentalists to try to cover up the inconsistency.

At least the ‘English Standard’ Bible is considerate enough to put the correct translation in the footnotes.

See here:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+2%3A19

Unfortunately, the translators of the ‘NIV’ Bible, and the ‘God’s Word’ Bible, weren’t even honest enough to do that.

I wrote:

"According to the translators [of the NIV], the text is aimed at seventh-grade reading level. Even people of less than average education or intelligence can understand the language whether they are reading it or hearing it. The footnotes usually indicate where the translators have substituted words.”

Bryan responded:

“Uh, DingbatDave, your quotation supports what I said.

Newspapers, FYI, are geared toward a fifth-grade reading level. Just like the modern era of political speechwriting.”

Are newspaper articles always accurate and truthful? Are political speeches always honest and impartial? Do you believe everything you read in newspapers, or that you hear in political speeches? Of course you don’t, and neither do I.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is necessary or desirable to ‘dumb down’ the ‘Word of God’ to the point where it becomes the literary equivalent of your local tabloid newspaper, so that even seventh graders and ‘people of less than average education or intelligence’ can easily understand it?

The translators themselves admit in the preface, that the NIV Bible is designed to appeal to children and simpletons.

You had to resort to quoting a translation of the Bible which is geared towards children and simpletons in order to prop up your theology, and you have the hubris to laugh at me?

If you can’t, or won’t admit that these kinds of Bible ‘translations’ take undue liberties with certain texts, then there is little point continuing this discussion with you.

What was your argument again?

Let’s take a look at the quality of the ‘God’s Word' translation shall we?

Here’s what one Christian commentator had to say about it.

“This version was produced by the "God's Word to the Nations Bible Society" in Cleveland, Ohio. Although the preface and the advertising for the version make no mention of the fact, all of those involved in the production of the version were members of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. It appears to be an attempt to create a version similar to the American Bible Society's Good News Bible (GNB), which would be acceptable to ministers in the Lutheran churches. The reading level of the translation is about the same as the GNB. The preface states that the theory followed by the God's Word translators is "closest natural equivalent translation," and it tries to draw a distinction between this method and the "function-equivalent" method (more commonly known as dynamic equivalence), in which there is a "loss of meaning and oversimplification." Nevertheless, the version exhibits all the usual characteristics of "dynamic equivalence," including loss of meaning and simplification. The method of the God's Word translation differs in no important respect from the method used in the GNB…

The preface states that "God's Word is intended to be read by those who are well-versed in Scripture as well as first-time Bible readers, Christians as well as non-Christians, adults as well as children." And so, as in the case of the GNB, an attempt is made to promote the use of the version by all kinds of readers. But it is obvious that the translation is designed more for the first-time readers and children. Theological terms familiar to most adult Christians are avoided (e.g. "church" is sometimes changed to "community of believers," "grace" becomes "good will" or "kindness," "justification" becomes "God's approval," "the Law" becomes "Moses' Teachings")…

It seems that even though all of those involved in the production of the God's Word translation were Missouri Synod Lutherans who sought to produce a version acceptable to conservatives, they were either unaware of or disregarded some points of exegesis that are especially important to Lutherans. Judging from the sample passages dealt with here, it also seems they were not in the habit of consulting scholarly commentaries in general, and had little appreciation for the communicative function of Biblical imagery. These problems are typical of the "Dynamic Equivalence" versions generally. The claim made in the preface of the God's Word translation, that it "avoids the loss of meaning and oversimplification associated with function-equivalent translation," is untrue. But its shortcomings are not much greater than those of the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version. All of these versions may be found useful in ministry with young children, but they are not necessary or suitable for adults.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/godsword.html

Regarding the Rheims and Douai Bible (1582-1609)

“The translation, being prepared with a definite polemical purpose, was naturally equipped with notes of a controversial character, and with a preface in which the object and method of the work were explained. It had, however, as a whole, little success. The Old Testament was reprinted only once in the course of a century, and the New Testament not much oftener. In England the greater part of its circulation was due to the action of a vehement adversary, W. Fulke, who, in order to expose its errors, printed the Rheims New Testament in parallel columns with the Bishops' version of 1572, and the Rheims annotations with his own refutations of them; and this work had a considerable vogue. Regarded from the point of view of scholarship, the Rheims and Douai Bible is of no importance, marking retrogression rather than advance; but it needs mention in a history of the English Bible, because it is one of the versions of which King James' translators made use.”

Just because a passage in Hebrew can (at a considerable stretch) be translated in the past tense, doesn’t mean that it should be translated that way. Obviously the vast majority of Bible translators agree. You need to ask yourself why, rather than resorting to ridicule as a last resort.

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

Well, you never were the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.

"If the original Hebrew can so easily be translated in the past tense, then why is it that the NIV is the only translation to do so?"

OK, I admit that I didn't give that statement enough thought before posting it.

However, you conveniently failed to mention that I later qualified that statement with;

"Both these versions translate this passage in the present tense, as does the KJV and every other translation that I am aware of.

Selective reading Bryan? I think so.

[Bryan]

Good grief. The Dingbat doesn't know when to silence himself.

billydee4 wrote:

At least the ‘English Standard’ Bible is considerate enough to put the correct translation in the footnotes.

See here:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+2%3A19

Unfortunately, the translators of the ‘NIV’ Bible, and the ‘God’s Word’ Bible, weren’t even honest enough to do that.

"Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed"

The ESB was a long way from calling it the "correct" translation--that's all Dingbat.

Are newspaper articles always accurate and truthful?

No, and neither are papers written at a doctoral level, nor writings that Dingbat can't understand at all (such as Sanskrit writings?).

Are political speeches always honest and impartial? Do you believe everything you read in newspapers, or that you hear in political speeches?  Of course you don’t, and neither do I.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is necessary or desirable to ‘dumb down’ the ‘Word of God’ to the point where it becomes the literary equivalent of your local tabloid newspaper, so that even seventh graders and ‘people of less than average education or intelligence’ can easily understand it?

There's always the original Hebrew or Greek if the NIV gets too easy for them.

Your consistency would be admirable, Dingbat, if you weren't consistently silly. There is no bar to truthfulness based on the level of discourse.

The translators themselves admit in the preface, that the NIV Bible is designed to appeal to children and simpletons.

Two grades above newspaper discourse!

You had to resort to quoting a translation of the Bible which is geared towards children and simpletons in order to prop up your theology, and you have the hubris to laugh at me?

I gave the NIV as an example of a legitimate grammatical translation. Your attempt to respond to that point makes you deserving of ridicule.

If you can’t, or won’t admit that these kinds of Bible ‘translations’ take undue liberties with certain texts, then there is little point continuing this discussion with you.

What was your argument again?

That the verb is legitimately translated into the past perfect tense on the basis of the grammar and the context.

<snip Dingbat's even more outrageous waste of time>

Just because a passage in Hebrew can (at a considerable stretch) be translated in the past tense, doesn’t mean that it should be translated that way.

1) Why is it a considerable stretch?

2) What should determine how the verb is translated?

This should be good!

Obviously the vast majority of Bible translators agree. You need to ask yourself why, rather than resorting to ridicule as a last resort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is improper to call ridicule my last resort. You've never addressed my argument except with a fallacious appeal to popularity. Instead of asking yourself why Bible translators use the past perfect tense, you simply assume that they are wrong since they are in the minority.

Rather than being my last resort, ridicule is a purely decorative cherry atop the large and scrumptious sundae of your humiliating defeat.

And this is just one more among many examples why you are a dingbat and deserve to be ignored.

[billydee4]

Good grief.  The Dingbat doesn't know when to silence himself.

"Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed"

The ESB was a long way from calling it the "correct" translation--that's all Dingbat.

No, and neither are papers written at a doctoral level, nor writings that Dingbat can't understand at all (such as Sanskrit writings?).

There's always the original Hebrew or Greek if the NIV gets too easy for them.

Your consistency would be admirable, Dingbat, if you weren't consistently silly.  There is no bar to truthfulness based on the level of discourse.

 

Two grades above newspaper discourse! 

 

I gave the NIV as an example of a legitimate grammatical translation.  Your attempt to respond to that point makes you deserving of ridicule.

That the verb is legitimately translated into the past perfect tense on the basis of the grammar and the context.

<snip Dingbat's even more outrageous waste of time>

1)  Why is it a considerable stretch?

2)  What should determine how the verb is translated?

This should be good!

It is improper to call ridicule my last resort.  You've never addressed my argument except with a fallacious appeal to popularity.  Instead of asking yourself why Bible translators use the past perfect tense, you simply assume that they are wrong since they are in the minority.

Rather than being my last resort, ridicule is a purely decorative cherry atop the large and  scrumptious sundae of your humiliating defeat.

And this is  just one more among many examples why you are a dingbat and deserve to be ignored.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is more of the radical fundie thinking on controversial issues. Over 90% of the world's scientists involved in evoutionary studies accept evolution. The fundies find a handful of scientists--often not involved with evolution--who say that evolution is false. They ignore the 90% and go with the crackpots. The same is true with global warming. Most of the world's environmental scientists say that global warming exists, so they find a few sciency guys who say it does not exist. Fundies ignore all of the evidence and the opinion of many experts and go along with the nutjobs who don't believe in global warming.

Brian thinks that the NIV translation is best because it fits his beliefs. He ignores the opinions of the vast majority of biblical scholars and picks a translation that he agrees with. Somehow the small number of conservative, literalist translators that put together the NIV knew better than the vast majority of translators.

Bryan asked about the other 5 versions that didn't use the past perfect tense. I already explained that. Keep digging your hole, Bryan. Someday you may wind up in China.

[Bryan]

Yes, I found three out of thirty that support your position.  All three were put together by fundamentalist biblical literalists.  What makes them more authoritive than the twenty-five that do not support your position.

They don't need to be authoritative. They just need to have good reason for the translation.

Because you say so is not a reason.  Take your head out of your ass and come up with a real answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Been there, done that. You just ignore it and keep blathering on and on as though you think you know what you're talking about.

Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=11139&st=20#

"Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present and future tenses like English (modern Hebrew is another story altogether, however). Instead, action is regarded as either complete or incomplete. Incomplete action is referred to as perfect and incomplete action is referred to as imperfect. Generally speaking, the perfect aspect will be translated into English with the English past tense and the imperfect will be translated into English with the English future tense. However, this is only an approximation of the situation, and so there will be times when altogether different tenses will be better in certain circumstances."

http://www.theology.edu/hebrew/hb07.htm"

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=11139&st=120#

Instead of looking into the issue to find out the basis for using past perfect in the translation of the verb, you apparently assumed that doctrinal considerations alone explain the translation. None of you dealt with the plain basis for my argument as I gave it from the first: the Hebrew permits the translation on the basis of grammar and context.

[Guest DingoDave]

Bryan wrote:

"Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present and future tenses like English (modern Hebrew is another story altogether, however). Instead, action is regarded as either complete or incomplete. Incomplete action is referred to as perfect and incomplete action is referred to as imperfect. Generally speaking, the perfect aspect will be translated into English with the English past tense and the imperfect will be translated into English with the English future tense. However, this is only an approximation of the situation, and so there will be times when altogether different tenses will be better in certain circumstances."

Then why is it that only three out of the thirty English translations examined read, "had formed" rather than simply "formed"? The overwhelming consensus among bible scholars is to translate this passage in the present tense. What reason do we have to believe that the NIV, the ‘God’s Word’, and the ‘English Standard’ versions got it right, and that all the others got it wrong?

If the context so easily allows for this passage to be translated in the past tense, then I would expect to see a far more even distribution of both renderings among Bible translations. But that’s not what we see is it?

The most plausible explanation seems to be that these three aberrant translations simply exploited a perceived loophole in ancient Hebrew grammar in an effort to smooth out an obvious contradiction, so as not to disturb the tranquillity of their flocks. After all, an upset sheep isn’t quite so easy to fleece is it?

What these three translations appear to have done is to have added a word which does not appear in the original Hebrew, and which according to the vast majority of scholars, violates the original intentions of the author.

As someone else has already mentioned, these translations were commissioned by fundamentalist evangelical organisations, which obviously had a fundamentalist, evangelical agenda to promote. If this is the case, then why shouldn't we be sceptical about whether these translators acted in good faith, and gave due consideration to what the author originally intended?

As I mentioned before, the ‘NIV’ Bible, and the ‘God’s Word’ Bible don’t even list the more appropriate translation in their footnotes. It appears that they didn’t even want to risk their readers becoming aware of the correct rendering of the text. Dubious translating? I think so. And it appears that many Christians agree.

[Bryan]

This is more of the radical fundie thinking on controversial issues. Over 90% of the world's scientists involved in evoutionary studies accept evolution.  The fundies find a handful of scientists--often not involved with evolution--who say that evolution is false.  They ignore the 90% and go with the crackpots.

Nicely off-topic. But what do we expect when all it is is an ad hominem?

The same is true with global warming.  Most of the world's environmental scientists say that global warming exists, so they find a few sciency guys who say it does not exist.  Fundies ignore all of the evidence and the opinion of many experts and go along with the nutjobs who don't believe in global warming.

If you use two different ad hominem attacks consecutively then a good argument results.

Brian thinks that the NIV translation is best because it fits his beliefs.

But why stick with ad hominem when you can strengthen your argument still more by simply making stuff up?

I have never suggested that the NIV is the "best" translation. I simply offered it as evidence that a past perfect translation in Gen. 2 is grammatically acceptable. It has zero to do with the translation itself fitting my beliefs. It has everything to do with the translators following a valid principle of translation of which I have long been aware, but is apparently new to some KOTW anti-Christians.

He ignores the opinions of the vast majority of biblical scholars and picks a translation that he agrees with.

Non sequitur. You can't conclude that a scholar who uses one tense in a translation therefore believes that a different tense is not grammatically acceptable. Not logically, anyway.

Somehow the small number of conservative, literalist translators that put together the NIV knew better than the vast majority of translators.

Red herring. The majority view is neither necessarily correct nor, in this case, is it indicative of a rejection of the minority view.

Bryan asked about the other 5 versions that didn't use the past perfect tense.  I already explained that.

Leaving aside the fact that you didn't back up your assertions about "fundamentalist" origins, you're still confronted with the grammatical/contextual argument of which I reminded you here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=63326

Keep digging your hole, Bryan.  Someday you may wind up in China.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just let me know when you're ready to abandon the fallacious rhetoric in favor of dealing with my argument.

[billydee4]

They don't need to be authoritative.  They just need to have good reason for the translation.

Been there, done that.  You just ignore it and keep blathering on and on as though you think you know what you're talking about.

Were you also aware that the Hebrew in chapter 2 allows for past tense (rendered in the NIV, for example, "had formed")?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=11139&st=20#

"Biblical Hebrew does not have past, present and future tenses like English (modern Hebrew is another story altogether, however). Instead, action is regarded as either complete or incomplete. Incomplete action is referred to as perfect and incomplete action is referred to as imperfect. Generally speaking, the perfect aspect will be translated into English with the English past tense and the imperfect will be translated into English with the English future tense. However, this is only an approximation of the situation, and so there will be times when altogether different tenses will be better in certain circumstances."

http://www.theology.edu/hebrew/hb07.htm"

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...c=11139&st=120#

Instead of looking into the issue to find out the basis for using past perfect in the translation of the verb, you apparently assumed that doctrinal considerations alone explain the translation.  None of you dealt with the plain basis for my argument as I gave it from the first:  the Hebrew permits the translation on the basis of grammar and context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not arguing that the Hebrew allows both translations but your insistence and the insistence of the NIV translators to say that your translation is the right one. The decision to use either the past or past-perfect in English was not done by a coin toss.

[Bryan]

I am not arguing that the Hebrew allows both translations but your insistence and the insistence of the NIV translators to say that your translation is the right one.

Argue, then. I've already made my argument.

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

Then why is it that only three out of the thirty English translations examined read, "had formed" rather than simply "formed"? The overwhelming consensus among bible scholars is to translate this passage in the present tense. What reason do we have to believe that the NIV, the ‘God’s Word’, and the ‘English Standard’ versions got it right, and that all the others got it wrong?

That's not really my problem, if you think about it (I realize that's a tall order for you).

Paul had argued that the text was plainly chronological, and that a clear contradiction exists between the first and second chapters of Genesis.

You got involved in that existing argument, passing your ignorance off as knowledge, and you completely missed the point. Paul's argument is undermined if he cannot reliably say that it is improper (that is, not allowable) that the text translates in the past perfect tense. You can't make an deductive claim of a sure contradiction on the basis of an inductive (probabilistic) argument.

And, when it comes to that, I have already provided the basis you requested. Grammatical possibility combined with granting the text the benefit of the doubt. Basic tools of interpretation that even a dingbat uses occasionally in his day-to-day activities.

If the context so easily allows for this passage to be translated in the past tense, then I would expect to see a far more even distribution of both renderings among Bible translations. But that’s not what we see is it?

No, and the problem couldn't possibly be with your expectations.

The most plausible explanation seems to be that these three aberrant translations simply exploited a perceived loophole in ancient Hebrew grammar in an effort to smooth out an obvious contradiction, so as not to disturb the tranquillity of their flocks. After all, an upset sheep isn’t quite so easy to fleece is it?

If that's the most plausible explanation, then why don't all churches use those three supposedly aberrant translations?

The most plausible explanation seems to be that you just made up your most plausible explanation to suit your argument.

In fact, your argument contradicts itself. If it is an obvious contradiction as you say, then the argument for using the admissible past perfect tense is that much stronger. Thus, the most likely reason that most translators don't join in the use of the past perfect tense is that they don't think it contradicts regardless (something I pointed out earlier to Paul when I showed that the things created actually vary).

What these three translations appear to have done is to have added a word which does not appear in the original Hebrew, and which according to the vast majority of scholars, violates the original intentions of the author.

That sums up very succinctly the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about. The Hebrew verbs don't work like ours at all. There is no "past perfect" as such, so their perfect tense would serve various roles, with the understanding typically determined by the context in which the word is used. The tense used is precisely what they would use if where the application called for the past perfect tense. You would have the translators pretend that the lack of past perfect tense in the structure of the language forbids the past perfect meaning. That simply doesn't follow. You would be likely to know that if you knew more than a fraction about a language other than English.

As someone else has already mentioned, these translations were commissioned by fundamentalist evangelical organisations, which obviously had a fundamentalist, evangelical agenda to promote. If this is the case, then why shouldn't we be sceptical about whether these translators acted in good faith, and gave due consideration to what the author originally intended?

Go ahead. Be skeptical. Don't pretend that it substitutes for an argument, however.

As I mentioned before, the ‘NIV’ Bible, and the ‘God’s Word’ Bible don’t even list the more appropriate translation in their footnotes.

So you're arguing that 27 out of 30 establishes the "most appropriate" translation?

It appears that they didn’t even want to risk their readers becoming aware of the correct rendering of the text. Dubious translating? I think so. And it appears that many Christians agree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many of the Christians who distrust the NIV in particular have accepted extremely dubious arguments regarding the sources used to compile the original King James Bible. That's something even a dingbat should know, too.

That's three, Dingbat. Thanks for going out of your way again to show that you are very appropriately ignored. You don't know what you're talking about.