Jump to content

New NT Translation for LDS


Stargazer

Recommended Posts

Got this in email today from The Interpreter Foundation.  It pertains to a review of Thomas A. Wayment's translation of the New Testament, with the title The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible.

This is the text in the email:
 

Quote

Translating the New Testament for Latter-day Saints

Posted: December 4, 2018 at 1:00 pm

Review of Thomas A. Wayment, trans., The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018). $29.99 print. $17.00 digital. 491 pp. In a sermon delivered in Salt Lake City, Utah on August 27, 1871, Brigham Young issued this charge: [If] there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate [the Bible] any better than King James’s translators did it, he is under obligation to do so, or the curse is upon him. If I understood Greek and Hebrew as some may profess ...

The link to the review is:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/translating-the-new-testament-for-latter-day-saints/

One snippet that I found interesting is the comparison between the KJV and the WT on Matthew 5:48

Matt. 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Therefore, you will be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.
  • Like 1
Link to post

I haven't made up my mind about this. I generally dismiss most things which use the word translation. It's just so easy for Satan to manipulate people, however I do think the phrase "you will be perfect" is interesting and thought provoking.

Edited by Gillebre
  • Like 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I wonder why the change of tense and therefore implies who will be doing the perfecting.

"Be ye..." comes across as a command. But I cannot perfect myself.  I can only repent of my sins, and when I do, the stain of those sins still remains.  The perfection arises through the blood of Christ, which cleans the stains from my soul.  And it does not arise from any action I can take.  So I think that "will" is a more accurate rendering, doctrinally.

Link to post
18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So I think that "will" is a more accurate rendering, doctrinally

I don't disagree, but what words in the source documents justified that meaning ?

Edited by strappinglad
Link to post
18 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I don't disagree, but what words in the source documents justified that meaning ?

Sorry but my koine is a bit rusty.  I don't know.

But here's a link that shows a number of other translations: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew 5%3A48

At least one uses "shall".

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
  • 3 months later...

Wow!:

1) There are already a bunch of translations that more closely relate to modern English - you don´t even have to get one with all the non-LDS Christian notes -just the text.

2) Most translators who are doing true translation welcome the help of other translators - but this author seems to be taking on the whole NT by himself:

On 12/7/2018 at 8:12 PM, Gillebre said:

I haven't made up my mind about this. I generally dismiss most things which use the word translation. It's just so easy for Satan to manipulate people, however I do think the phrase "you will be perfect" is interesting and thought provoking.

--This is even easier when he only has to knock over one pin.

3) Given #2 - How will this individual justify such major (and LDS friendly) differences in his translation in comparison to the dozens of other translations that have already been made? - for this ¨will¨ example - this ¨will¨ does not necessarily contest any non-LDS doctrine - so no non-LDS translator would have been motivated to avoid this translation except that the manuscripts do not justify it.

4) Unless he can give a well substantiated and reasonable explanation for his translation over the dozens of other translations (that don´t say ¨will¨) then this is much less a ¨translation¨ than a syncretistic (at best) rewriting (at worst) of the Bible to bring it in-line with LDS scriptures.

5) How can it be a ¨translation for Latter-day Saints¨? What does it mean to translate from manuscripts into a translation for a doctrine?

6) That is a great quote by Brigham Young - a very good way of pointing out how LDS prophets, seers, and revelators should have ¨translated¨ the whole Bible so long ago (include BY himself).

 

It will be interesting to see how exactly LDS researchers (Christian and non-christian) and how the LDS leadership respond to this.

Link to post
  • 11 months later...
On 3/29/2019 at 1:40 AM, Joshua Valentine said:

Wow!:

1) There are already a bunch of translations that more closely relate to modern English - you don´t even have to get one with all the non-LDS Christian notes -just the text.

2) Most translators who are doing true translation welcome the help of other translators - but this author seems to be taking on the whole NT by himself:

t will be interesting to see how exactly LDS researchers (Christian and non-christian) and how the LDS leadership respond to this.

An "LDS version" of anything could be seen as "sectarian" and cultish. As  pointed out, bible translations are done in groups/committees in order to draw on the strength of all the collective experience, previous scholarship and previous endeavors of the translators. Also, LDS theology does not deviate much from the teaching of the Apostles of Christ or the reported history of the early church. Modern revelation expounds on a number of issues that are obscure in the NT but not much beyond that. Personally, I really do not see a need for an "LDS version of the NT". I read the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB and the ESV when I am studying the NT. In the 21st century, I doubt some LDS scholar can add anything of substantive value through translation of the source documents. Just my take.

Link to post
On 3/12/2020 at 1:00 AM, Islander said:

An "LDS version" of anything could be seen as "sectarian" and cultish. As  pointed out, bible translations are done in groups/committees in order to draw on the strength of all the collective experience, previous scholarship and previous endeavors of the translators. Also, LDS theology does not deviate much from the teaching of the Apostles of Christ or the reported history of the early church. Modern revelation expounds on a number of issues that are obscure in the NT but not much beyond that. Personally, I really do not see a need for an "LDS version of the NT". I read the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB and the ESV when I am studying the NT. In the 21st century, I doubt some LDS scholar can add anything of substantive value through translation of the source documents. Just my take.

You're probably right, but I've enjoyed reading this new translation nevertheless.

Link to post
On 12/7/2018 at 7:17 PM, Stargazer said:
Matt. 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Therefore, you will be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Mr. Wayment doesn't understand the context in which Jesus said all he said in the verses preceding
v.48.  If he did, he would not get mixed up with what appears to his tilt towards a future perfection or
"exaltation."

Link to post

Yeah, somehow I doubt Tom missed that possibility. I will try and remember to ask him, but likely will forget. 

Link to post
On 12/8/2018 at 5:03 PM, strappinglad said:

I don't disagree, but what words in the source documents justified that meaning ?

Well, the verb rendered "you will be" in Wayment's translation is Ἔσεσθε (esesthe) which is a future indicative middle voice verb. So on face value, "you will be" is accurate. But Greek often uses tense more as an indication of the kind of action that takes place, rather than when such action takes place. So present tense can indicate action that is continuing, while future tense can indicate action that seems to take place at a particular point. Since the adjective τέλειος (teleios) means "perfect" or "complete," I think the future tense could indicate a time (that is not now) where perfection will be complete. Some versions read something like "you are to be perfect," which seems like kind of a mix between our English future and imperative. My Greek knowledge is mostly amateur, though, so I could be misunderstanding what I've read. 

Here's the interlinear from BibleHub for the verse, so come to your own conclusion: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/5-48.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Well, the verb rendered "you will be" in Wayment's translation is Ἔσεσθε (esesthe) which is a future indicative middle voice verb. So on face value, "you will be" is accurate. But Greek often uses tense more as an indication of the kind of action that takes place, rather than when such action takes place. So present tense can indicate action that is continuing, while future tense can indicate action that seems to take place at a particular point. Since the adjective τέλειος (teleios) means "perfect" or "complete," I think the future tense could indicate a time (that is not now) where perfection will be complete. Some versions read something like "you are to be perfect," which seems like kind of a mix between our English future and imperative. My Greek knowledge is mostly amateur, though, so I could be misunderstanding what I've read. 

Here's the interlinear from BibleHub for the verse, so come to your own conclusion: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/5-48.htm

I used to regard this scripture as definite evidence for theosis or exaltation, but have gradually come off that conviction to the degree that I think it might be such -- but that it might also refer to the perfection that results when the natural man has given himself over to God through Christ's atonement, and thus achieves perfection (i.e. forgiveness) thereby.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...