Luke 24:25-32 is paradigmatic of the typical Jew. Even Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel didn't know how to properly interpret the Scriptures. Doubtless, there were men of God who were given to know at least in part that what God spoke to them transcended their personal experience. Divine revelation was given progressively over centuries and finalized by the inspired NT writers where all things were given their true meaning. But even though that is true, there are yet things which are yet unknown even to the most gifted of this world. The Infinite cannot be fully comprehended by those who are finite. WE are given to know the mysteries of the kingdom which those in the OT yearned to know. Yet, even though the saints of old were given only types and shadows of that which was to come by the prophets (Heb 1:1,2) it was sufficient to elicit true saving faith in God and the hope of a coming Messiah through the regenerating work of the Spirit of God. They knew in part and we are given to know more in part of the things that were, that are now and of the world to come. But we shall have to wait for the full revelation of God's glory, majesty and His magnificent plan that He has ordained from eternity for the sons of God.
Let translation be true. And let the Spirit teach the meaning of the translation through the means ordained by God. Translation should NOT be interpretation. A man born and raised in some remote place may never even heard of an animal called a "sheep". The translator has no warrant to substitute the name of a different animal in order to bring "clarity" to those such as that man. For to do so is to blaspheme God Who in His perfect wisdom chose that animal in order to reveal the LORD Christ Who was as a lamb led to the slaughter... The lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Today, one's theology or lack of one dictates how translations are done. But the truth is, one is to derive their theology from a translation. And that is where the root lies..... bad translations produce bad theology. And the Lord knows there is surely a plethora of bad theology being taught and believed in our day by those who claim to be servants of God and who hold positions of authority, e.g., pastors and teachers. Lord, come quickly for even thine elect would be in jeopardy of being led astray were it not for the power and preservation of the Spirit of Truth.
Okay, so what about Psalm 8:4-6? Was Dr. Beck correct in translating "man" and "him" in v4 and then go to "Him" and "His" in vs5,6? Dr. Beck translates that as clearly referring to Christ as given in Hebrews 2:6-9, but I do not know of another translation that does such. Was Dr. Beck misleading to translate that to fit the Hebrews quote? I think of Isaiah 7:14 when the uproar over the traditional "virgin" was changed to "a young woman" in the RSV. For many years I was taught those Communists in the NCC corrupted that verse and they were going straight to hell. The RSV foot note reads "Gk virgin". The KJV used the LXX translation/interpretation of "virgin" and the RSV/NRSV used the literal word for word Hebrew "young woman". The New English Translation (NET Bible), which is a conservative translation, which also translates it as "young woman" has an interesting footnote on that word:
Isa 7:14 (NET Notes)
"3 tn Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place."
I find it interesting, the NRSV in Zechariah 12:10 translates "look on the one" from the LXX with foot note "Heb 'on me'". The KJV follows the Hebrew "look upon me". So, the two translations reverse whether they stay with the Hebrew or go with the Greek. The KJV with the Greek in Isa. 7:14 and the Hebrew in Zech. 12:10, the RSV with the Hebrew in Isa. 7:14 and with the Greek in Zech. 12:10. I prefer the way the REB (Revised English Bible" translates Zech. 12:10 -
"but I shall pour a spirit of pity and compassion on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then they will look on me, on him whom they have pierced, and will lament over him as over an only child, and will grieve for him bitterly as for a firstborn son." (Zech 12:10, REB) Again the NET Bible has a clarifying note on that verse:
"2 tc Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, many mss read אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ale ’et ’asher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ela ’et ’asher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear – they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable – and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.
tn Or “on me.”
An interesting note on this question of translations, the Orthodox Study Bible uses the LXX for the OT and the NKJV for their NT, since Jesus used the LXX. I was never a full 'KJV only', but for years I held it as the standard by which others were judged. When I realized that Jesus quoted from the LXX instead of the KJV,
I began to look more closely at reasons for translation choices, looking at the literal word for word and comparing the more dynamic thought for thought translations. The first time I noticed this was Jesus' quote in Matt. 19:5 where Jesus quoted the word "twain" but that is not in the Hebrew of the KJV OT. Jesus was quoting from the LXX Gen.2:24 - "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." A question comes to my mind though, Pilgrim, do you have a single translation you think is the most accurate in all passages of Scripture? For me, I would go with the American Standard Version of 1901, but I don't think it is always the perfect translation.