The New Testament

[Tzaia]

My comments are in blue. Quoted from the STF website - word for word.

This New Testament, the Revised English Version® (REV®), is the version that we are developing. We call it the REV because we are presenting a revised version of earlier English versions, primarily the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), which we have used as the base text for our work, modifying it when we feel it is appropriate.

I found that word "feel" to be a strange choice. The use of the word feel here is used to denote perception. I think the usage is absolutely true, but unintentional.

We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a "dynamic equivalent translation," such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an "essentially literal" translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today's English.

Please look here for an explanation of the differences between dynamic equivalent and essentially literal. I was intrigued by the use of "whenever appropriate". My question would be how and who determines when a change in language is appropriate. That would be JWS - there is no "we" unless "we" includes DG. In any case, it's a closed method of determination. The goal is to have a Bible that "more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market". My question is: According to whose standard? That statement is beyond arrogant as it assumes that no one has gotten it right, but JWS is sure getting close.

We think we can do that because we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly. Furthermore, one's theology always affects the way that person will translate the text. It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology.

So where did STF get this level of understanding that it allows them to render the meanings of text correctly? How do they know they are correct about any of it? The honest answer is that they don't. The next bold/italics statement is the reason for the rewrite. STF is unable to get the text as currently written to agree with its theological basis - the reason why there is an STF. STF's assertion is that no organization on the face of the planet has ever gotten it right. JWS's initial assertion was the Bible was something you could believe - at least that's what he claimed in the foundational "class" he and his sister co-taught. Now that's not the case, at least not without some rewrites on his part. He's essentially changing the text to reflect his theology.

Do I agree with his theology? It doesn't really matter. What I do not agree with is how he has gone about developing his theology. His first paper - the adultery and fornication paper - was written because he had no understanding of those concepts. He really didn't see, from just a reading of scripture, that this was a bad thing. So my impression is that he is essentially oppositional to "it is written" because he doesn't trust "the man" (so to speak). He is dismissive of people's input unless it comes from a trusted source, which is the problem. He is unable (IMO) to accurately discern who to trust. And he appears to take the screwball over the legitimate source every time.

I think the people who would be interested in this rewrite of sacred text for the purpose of supporting someone's theology should ask if that's really a good thing, or is STF taking the route of every other organization who has had a problem with "it is written"?