water said:
Today, we have many versions or editions of the Bible -- The King James Bible, The New International Bible, different "scientific and historically correct" versions, etc., not to mention the many translations into different languages and all the difficulties inherent to translations.
It confuses me.
Which Bible is the right Bible -- which Bible is one to adhere to?
I agree with your conclusion: one is not to adhere to any specific Bible or translation -- one's faith should not rest on a certain translation, just as meaning does not rest on one translation of a particular word. That's because it isn't only words that are translated, but a whole foreign culture and context, complete with idioms, expressions and associations. If one is trying to pass on a message across culture and time, it is necessary to preserve its meaning and content, and make it resilient somehow. Including different traditions and contexts is one way of doing this.
Theoretically and ideally, there is to be one Bible, and one alone. We could say that all those different versions and editions are approximates of this ideal Bible.
But thereby, our practical problem -- which Bible to sit down with and study and consider *the* Holy Bible -- remains.
The answer to that problem would depend on your needs -- that's why so many translations are still done, apart from the "authoritative" ones that incorporate newer translation techniques and interpretative methods.
For example, one can read a
paraphrase -- a Bible that tries to preserve the intended
meaning in a contemporary context. A good example of such a translation is
The Message. Another type of translation is the
literal (word-for-word) translation, which tries to present the most direct translations without "interpreting" anything, preserving the orignal tense and word usage. An example would be
Young's Literal translation.
Of course there are also various degrees inbetween, trying to maintain a balance between literal accuracy and idiomatic accuracy. These editions often include alternative translations in the text, and extensive cross reference information. The
Amplified Bible and the Afrikaans
Multitranslation Bible attempt to incorporate as much scholarly knowledge into as close a translation as can be managed. For more indepth research, a good concordance and reference materials are indispensible, and of course knowledge of the original languages. It's a matter of understanding a foreign language and culture, compounded by the
importance of understanding them.
None of these will make up for a belief that everybody is lying. They're all equally useful, or they're all equally rubbish.
Those Christians who cling on to the text of the Bible -- what would happen if they would use some other version or edition of the Bible?
Would their *faith* be diminished? Changed? Questioned?
That will depend how much stock they place in a certain interpretation. But normally a specific translation isn't even necessary for that. A person's emphasis will reflect on how he reads the Bible, which passages he reads, and what he prefers to hear -- no matter which Bible he's reading. The challenge is always to overcome such prejudices, because they are usually more threatening to their faith than a particular translation. An example is the Genesis-evolution debate.
And what about non-Christians who use the Bible to prove their points?
There are discrepancies between the different versions and editions of the Bible. What about arguments that are based on these discrepancies? Are such arguments valid?
These discrepancies are usually very easy to prioritize. Certain "translations" do propose different doctrines, such as the Jehova's Witnesses New World Translation that translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
a god," to support their
particular theology. Any alternative translation would certainly threaten their faith.
Because no major doctrine depends on one verse alone, there is no danger that one loose sleeper could derail the whole train, so to speak. Different translations do not easily give a different message, and the implications of a certain passage can easily be cross-examined within the Bible itself. It's not circular self-reference, as some would say, because the Bible was not written by one person at one time. For this reason, Jews would regularly refer to scripture to provide a context and lend credibility to their words -- in effect saying "look for yourselves".
I say that clinging strictly to the biblical text (of whichever version or edition) as the source of one's faith or argument is a try to put the *responsibility* for one's own faith or argument into someone else's hands.
This is not about translation or meaning anymore, but the testimony of the people themselves. Our knowledge of the events
is dependent on their testimonies, to a great extent. Their message had to reach us
somehow. But for the demands of faith -- and the original authors knew this -- belief cannot remain purely literary. Words have to correspond to meaning and truth at some point or they are to remain, very literally, empty lies.
There is more at stake here than just historical data, and that's something that cannot be emphasized enough. For preserved testimonies, the Bible is indispensible for faith, but it only supports and encourages faith --
it is no substitute for it.
