“It is an old and in some ways unfair cliche to say that translation is always a betrayal, but modern English versions of the Bible provide unfortunately persuasive evidence for that uncompromising generalization. … The modern English versions — especially in their treatment of Hebrew narrative prose — have placed readers at a grotesque distance from the distinctive literary experience of the Bible in its original language. As a consequence, the King James Version … remains the closest approach for English readers to the original … .

“Some observers have sought to explain the inadequacy of modern Bible translations in terms of the general decline of the English language. It is certainly true that there are far fewer people these days with a cultivated sensitivity to the expressive resources of the language, the nuances of lexical values, the force of metaphor and rhythm; and one is certainly much less likely to find such people on a committee of ecclesiastical or scholarly experts than one would have in the first decade of the seventeenth century. There are, nevertheless, still some brilliant stylists among English prose writers; and if our age has been graced with remarkable translations of Homer, Sophocles, and Dante, why not of the Bible?

“Part of the explanation, I suspect, is in … the impulse of the philologist … — here a barbarous term nicely catches the tenor of the activity — to “disambiguate” the terms of the text. The general result when applied to translation is to reduce, simplify, and denature the Bible. These unfortunate consequences are all the more pronounced when the philologist … has an underdeveloped sense of literary diction, rhythm, and the uses of figurative language; and that, alas, is often the case in an era in which literary culture is not widely disseminated … .

“The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English versions of the Bible is the use of translation as a vehicle for *explaining* the Bible instead of representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this amounts to explaining away the Bible. This impulse may be attributed … to a feeling that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to be made accessible — indeed, transparent — to all. …

“Alas … biblical syntax [is being repackaged] for an audience whose reading experience is assumed to be limited to ‘Time’ … .”

I hadn’t wondered before how useful this has been for churches’ mundane goals. If they can overcome reason in the minds of prospective members with the “get saved” pitch, then perhaps members’ minds become unusually pliant for other pitches.

http://www.allaboutgod.net/forum/topics/can-a-loved-one-be-saved-after?commentId=1383940%3AComment%3A286618