Two Key Verses can give a Translation's Theology Stance

[Arthur81]

From An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament, page 14:
"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contradictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers."

https://ia903104.us.archive.org/13/items/introductiontore00inte/introductiontore00inte.pdf

In the following, a review over time of a particular phrase in differing translations of Exodus 21:22 -

Septuagint (2C BC) "child be born imperfectly formed(versus)it be perfectly formed"
The Peshitta(2C AD) "she miscarries, and yet no mischief follow" (Aramaic)
Wycliffe(1395) "the child dead-born, but the woman liveth" (Eng. of the Vulgate)
Tyndale(1534) "her fruit depart from her and yet no misfortune followeth"
Geneva(1599) "her child depart from her and death follow not"
Douay(1609)RoCath "she miscarry indeed, but live herself" (Eng. of the Vulgate)
KJV(1611/1769) "her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow"
RV/ASV(1885/1901) "her fruit depart, and yet no mischief follow"

RSV(1952) "there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows"
NASB(1977) "she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,"
NJB(1985)RoCath "she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done"
NRSV(1989) "there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows"
REB(1989) "she has a miscarriage but suffers no further injury"
NAB(2010)RoCath "she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury"

1973: The Roe v. Wade US Supreme Court decision removing excessive government restriction on abortion.

Amplified Cl.(1987) "she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows"
Amplified (2015) "she gives birth prematurely [and the baby lives]" What caused the change in the same translation?

NASB(1977) "she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,"
NASB(1995/2020) "she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury" What caused the change in the same translation?

What new manuscript find or improvement in linguistic science caused the switch in the Amplified and NASB?

NET2(2019) "her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury"
EHV(2019) "the child comes out, yet no harm follows"
ESV(2016) "her children come out, but there is no harm"

After 1973 there is a significant translation change from a miscarriage to a premature birth. In Ex. 21:22, a fine on the offender is suitable to a miscarriage if the loss was not yet a human being. If a human being exists at conception, the penalty would be 'life for life'. It seems clear that the Roe v. Wade court decision brought about a "theological translation" in some versions, even within the revisions of certain translations.

The Preface of the ESV reads: "The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work."

Notice a couple of changes the ESV made from the 1971 RSV -

RSV Ex. 21:22 ... "so that there is a miscarriage"
ESV Ex. 21:22 .... "so that her children come out"

RSV 1 Cor. 6:9... "sexual perverts"
ESV 1 Cor. 6:9.. "men who practice homosexuality"

RSV 1 Tim. 1:10 .. "sodomites"
ESV 1 Tim. 1:10 .. "men who practice homosexuality"

This is why I consider the evangelical versions to be "A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible." This is why I generally use the RSV, NRSV, REB, NRSVue as a modern translation. BUT I still consider the 1885RV/1901 ASV to be the most accurate English translations.

 

[St. SteVen]

This is why I consider the evangelical versions to be "A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible." This is why I generally use the RSV, NRSV, REB, NRSVue as a modern translation. BUT I still consider the 1885RV/1901 ASV to be the most accurate English translations.

Good topic, thanks.
It seems unavoidable to me that Christian Bible translators would have their own man-made doctrinal bias.
Which they would bring to the translation work.

[

 

[Arthur81]

Good topic, thanks.
It seems unavoidable to me that Christian Bible translators would have their own man-made doctrinal bias.
Which they would bring to the translation work.

[

Yes, the fact that human nature even unconsciously can bring bias into a translation, requires a comparison of various translations. Also, it is important to know the translation philosophy or perspective of the translators. For instance, the NRSV is strictly translation minus the theological input, such as translating the OT with the NT Christian perspective. In addition, the NRSV is less likely to take sides in the theological disputes among Christians.

Even the KJV had its approach and perspective and their long 16 page "Translators to the Readers" section is important to read and understand. It mentions how or why they chose to translate the Christian assemblies with the word "churches".

 

[Phoneman777]

This is why I generally use the RSV, NRSV, REB, NRSVue as a modern translation. BUT I still consider the 1885RV/1901 ASV to be the most accurate English translations.

Why? The RSV - like all new translations based on the Critical Text (derived from the demonic Alexandrian Family MSS) has distorted or outright removed hundreds of texts, eg.:

Mark 10:21 leaves out "take up the Cross" in the invitation to follow Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16 says "Every Scripture inspired..." as if some Scripture isn't - KJV rightly says "All Scripture..."
Revelation 22:14 says "wash their robes..." while the KJV rightfully says "keep His commandments..."

Satan's war against the Bible via his papal antichrist is both shocking and revealing of just how clear and present the danger is to Protestantism - now not only blind to it, but tripping over itself to get back to Rome:

 

[Wrangler]

Yes, the fact that human nature even unconsciously can bring bias into a translation, requires a comparison of various translations.

In the alternative, don’t suppress the bias. Admit the bias in a translation note. The 2017 NRSV is particularly good at explaining their choice among the options.

One might not agree but at least you know the choice to be made.

 

[Jack]

This is why I consider the evangelical versions to be "A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible." This is why I generally use the RSV, NRSV, REB, NRSVue as a modern translation. BUT I still consider the 1885RV/1901 ASV to be the most accurate English translations.

Romans 1:26-27 (NRSV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (RSV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

 

[Arthur81]

Romans 1:26-27 (NRSV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27 (RSV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Jack, as you read Rom. 1:26-27 in any of the translations, you will see how it fits the situation Paul could see all around him in the Roman Empire. You can read it much more fully as described from this Greek philosopher's viewpoint. In agreement with Paul, this man gives a more full picture of the situation and it does not in any way compare to the two males in the OP of this thread

From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse

Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152

"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."

Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-20 [Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta]

demonax.info

 

[Ronald Nolette]

From An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament, page 14:
"A recent speaker has told of a project to issue 'a theologically conservative translation of the Bible.' Doubtless this is an appealing undertaking in the eyes of many. But the fact must be stressed that there is no place for theology in Bible translation, whether conservative or radical or whatever else. A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible. Linguistic science knows no theology; those of most contradictory views can meet on common ground devoid of polemic, agreed that Hebrew words mean such and such, and their inflection and syntactical relations imply this or that. These facts establish an agreed translation. Then, and then only, may the exegete and dogmatist busy himself with theological deductions from the thoughts of the Biblical writers."

https://ia903104.us.archive.org/13/items/introductiontore00inte/introductiontore00inte.pdf

In the following, a review over time of a particular phrase in differing translations of Exodus 21:22 -

Septuagint (2C BC) "child be born imperfectly formed(versus)it be perfectly formed"
The Peshitta(2C AD) "she miscarries, and yet no mischief follow" (Aramaic)
Wycliffe(1395) "the child dead-born, but the woman liveth" (Eng. of the Vulgate)
Tyndale(1534) "her fruit depart from her and yet no misfortune followeth"
Geneva(1599) "her child depart from her and death follow not"
Douay(1609)RoCath "she miscarry indeed, but live herself" (Eng. of the Vulgate)
KJV(1611/1769) "her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow"
RV/ASV(1885/1901) "her fruit depart, and yet no mischief follow"

RSV(1952) "there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows"
NASB(1977) "she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,"
NJB(1985)RoCath "she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done"
NRSV(1989) "there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows"
REB(1989) "she has a miscarriage but suffers no further injury"
NAB(2010)RoCath "she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury"

1973: The Roe v. Wade US Supreme Court decision removing excessive government restriction on abortion.

Amplified Cl.(1987) "she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows"
Amplified (2015) "she gives birth prematurely [and the baby lives]" What caused the change in the same translation?

NASB(1977) "she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury,"
NASB(1995/2020) "she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury" What caused the change in the same translation?

What new manuscript find or improvement in linguistic science caused the switch in the Amplified and NASB?

NET2(2019) "her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury"
EHV(2019) "the child comes out, yet no harm follows"
ESV(2016) "her children come out, but there is no harm"

After 1973 there is a significant translation change from a miscarriage to a premature birth. In Ex. 21:22, a fine on the offender is suitable to a miscarriage if the loss was not yet a human being. If a human being exists at conception, the penalty would be 'life for life'. It seems clear that the Roe v. Wade court decision brought about a "theological translation" in some versions, even within the revisions of certain translations.

The Preface of the ESV reads: "The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work."

Notice a couple of changes the ESV made from the 1971 RSV -

RSV Ex. 21:22 ... "so that there is a miscarriage"
ESV Ex. 21:22 .... "so that her children come out"

RSV 1 Cor. 6:9... "sexual perverts"
ESV 1 Cor. 6:9.. "men who practice homosexuality"

RSV 1 Tim. 1:10 .. "sodomites"
ESV 1 Tim. 1:10 .. "men who practice homosexuality"

This is why I consider the evangelical versions to be "A 'theological translation' is not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic perversion of the Bible." This is why I generally use the RSV, NRSV, REB, NRSVue as a modern translation. BUT I still consider the 1885RV/1901 ASV to be the most accurate English translations.

If one does an original language study and how the original words were used, you will fond out that the modern translations carry forth the better meaning.


Exodus if a child born early and no further damage done to the child (death or permanent injury)

And 1 Cor and 1 Tim in the words used in their cultural setting were homosexuals. I assume in cor. you are referring to the word effeminate.

 

[Jack]

Jack, as you read Rom. 1:26-27 in any of the translations, you will see how it fits the situation Paul could see all around him in the Roman Empire. You can read it much more fully as described from this Greek philosopher's viewpoint. In agreement with Paul, this man gives a more full picture of the situation and it does not in any way compare to the two males in the OP of this thread

From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse

Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152

"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."

Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-20 [Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta]

demonax.info

Yeah, God said gays are VILE and SHAMEFUL and heading for Hell fire.