Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why the error? | Matt 21:29 | Hank | 158663 | ||
Dear Art and Nancy: This post is chiefly to welcome you both to SBF and not to answer your question. Makarios has already attended to that very nicely. ..... I do, however, admire your perspicacity in noting the difference between the rendering of Matthew 21:29 in the 1977 and 1995 editions of the NASB, and your being sufficiently interested in it to go to the trouble of pointing it out to Forum readers. Errors do crop up even in modern editions of the Bible with all their safeguards, but thankfully most if not all of them are corrected in subsequent editions. ...... Translations are made by man and man errs. We all of us, translators not excluded, are not altogether unlike the cautious fellow who was so proud of his attention to detail and emphasis on accuracy that he considered his writing virtually free of error. But it wasn't, as evidenced by his remark, "I take great pains to proffread my work in in order to make sure is it free of erorr." ..... Or this example: A few years ago a picture of a group of guys in hard hats appeared in our local newspaper over the caption, "Sebastian County Garden Club Elects New Officers." To make it worse, the newspaper listed the names of these rugged men in hard hats. And they had really cute masculine first names, such as Mary, Phyllis, Missy and Sarah. Errors? You bet. They happen to the best of us! Even learned and seasoned translators. Even Forum posters! --Hank | ||||||
2 | How did the error live so long? | Matt 21:29 | Art and Nancy | 158833 | ||
I really appreciate our prompt, thought-out response, Makarios and Hank. I assume neither of you work for Lockman, but you both seem to know a lot about their NAS. Now my question is probably a "dead-end", and is addressed mostly to Hank, since you stated you don't rush to buy a new translation till the ink dries: how dry does the ink need to be? NAS was first copyrighted in 1960, and it wasn't until '95(?) that it was corrected?!? With all the other translations available to the NAS translators, who were surely scholars and well aware of them as they did the NAS, WHY did no one question this being in opposition? For 35 years? Maybe I'm being too picky, but something we learned several years ago was that it's OK to question--matter of fact, it's wrong not to; be a Berian. Thanx again, guys! Art and Nancy |
||||||
3 | How did the error live so long? | Matt 21:29 | Hank | 158837 | ||
Dear Art and Nancy: I quite agree with you that 35 years is a long time to let a boo-boo grow gray with age before taking remedial steps, but, alas, I don't have the answer to that one. ..... As for as how long to let the ink dry on new translations, I'd say at least until the second or third printings. That should take care of the printing errors and the bulk of other glaring errors that may be present in the work. I read somewhere that Thomas Nelson makes minor revisions -- I've heard it called "fine tuning" -- in their New King James Version with every subsequent printing, although no major revision has been made since its maiden publication of the complete text (Old and New Testaments) in 1982. I assume Lockkman does much the same thing. I note that Lockman lists ten different copyright dates for the NASB ranging from 1960 through 1995. Well, that's the best no-answer I've got :-) If you'd like to pursue this further, why don't you drop Lockman a friendly e-mail and ask them why 35 years was allowed to lapse before they attended to this matter? And report your findings back to us! --Hank | ||||||