# Common English Bible



## pepper (May 6, 2011)

A new translation is coming out. I already have the NT and Pslams. They have not finished the Ot. Does anyone know about it and what do you think? They have a web site at CommonEnglishBible.com.


----------



## nicnap (May 6, 2011)

Looks like a terrible translation.


----------



## pepper (May 6, 2011)

I must agree with you Nicholas. It seems to be a liberal translation just by the look of the translation team. Still I must examine it because, as a pastor, I am sure someone will ask about the translation.


----------



## nicnap (May 6, 2011)

Indeed; I understand. I looked at the provided portions and they were terrible, though feasible. For instance, their Genesis 1:1 ...


----------



## DMcFadden (May 6, 2011)

A quick review suggests that it is EXTREMELY dynamic in philosophy. They are also not afraid to deviate from traditional renderings (cf. Gen 1:1), seem ready to adopt controversial readings and suggested possible meanings, and carry the idiomatic to the point of being carelessly casual (i.e., the opposite of the majestic effect intended by the KJV translators). The team looks like a mix of mainliners with a few almost evangelicals tossed in for good measure. I would be afraid that using it with force me to keep an open Hebrew or Greek text next to it to keep checking my continual reaction of "really? How did they get that translation?"


----------



## Marrow Man (May 6, 2011)

Almost looks like the ESV image (the water image) at the top. New English instead of English Standard. Hmmm...

Two names I see on the list: Tremper Longman (now in the PC(USA)!) and Peter Davids. I know what's happened to Longman in the last few years (except the denomination affiliation); what's the scoop on Davids? Is he one of the liberals or "near evangelicals"? I think I have a couple of his commentaries.


----------



## Marrow Man (May 6, 2011)

Hmmm. Interesting. They retained "virgin" in Matthew 1:23. Looks like that would have been one of the first things to go.


----------



## seajayrice (May 6, 2011)

At some point one must believe these endless (and questionable) translations are not helpful to the Kingdom. Aside from the KJO crowd, why so few protests?


----------



## DMcFadden (May 6, 2011)

I agree with Leland Ryken that when we departed from a single common English translation, we lost far more than we gained. However, as Ryken also observes, there is no use trying to close the barn door now after the cows have exited (in every possible direction). Since, by definition, NO one translation will satisfy everyone, we seem destined to the continued proliferation of translations. One thing I am certain about: this is NOT a viable candidate for a truly common English translation. It is idiosyncratic, extremely unique in its renderings, and jarring to someone with even a casual acquaintance with the Scriptures.

I'll keep my KJV, NKJV, and ESV thank you very much.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 6, 2011)

I agree that this does not look helpful. What does this translation do that the New Living Translation doesn't do? Haven't we explored the dynamic equivalence end of things to their last possible extremity? Genesis 1:1 is not good. E.J. Young refuted this translation years ago, and no one has refuted him. And the problem with positing eternal matter (which their translation of Gen 1:1 does do) is not the only problem: they translate "tohu vabohu" as "without shape or form." In other words, they translate it as a hendyadis. But more likely the phrase has to do with lifelessness and formlessness, the second problem of which is taken care of in the first three days of creation (God gives form to creation), and the first problem is taken care of in the last three days (God makes it full of life). This is highly obscured by the CEB.

I much prefer the HCSB and the ESV, not to mention the venerable KJV, and NKJV.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (May 6, 2011)

Apparently the NIV is too conservative and the NRSV too "literal" (ha!!!) for some liberal mainlines, so voila!


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 6, 2011)

pepper said:


> what do you think?



After looking into it, the only thing I like is the name . . . similar to the Book of _Common_ Prayer. But in light of its origins and philosophy, it promises to be a horrible translation. 

And how 'bout that Video?! Ridiculous. I've seen better acting on the 3 a.m. Info-mercials!


----------



## pepper (May 9, 2011)

Thanks guys, I just wanted to make sure you all are aware of this so called translation.


----------



## JM (May 9, 2011)

The translators seem to be liberal Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, PCA, a 7th Day Adventist a couple of Jews.


----------



## Bad Organist (May 23, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> At some point one must believe these endless (and questionable) translations are not helpful to the Kingdom. Aside from the KJO crowd, why so few protests?



Hi,

But why stop just now? Surely, if there are too many "translations" now, why didn't this stop 10 or 20 years ago. There were then already more than enough "translations" in English in the marketplace. If you stop now, maybe someone in the future will say that they never had a favourite "translation" of the Bible. Besides doesn't free market capitalism extend to bible publishing?

From my point of view, it is unfortunate that there isn't a single church authorized bible in the English language. But it seems that the holy scriptures are not considered God's gift to His church, but now more of a academic and commercial venture.

At least this "translation" is called "Common". At the least it is a relief from having another "Standard" bible.

I wonder sometimes with the multiplicity of versions, what it does to the spirituality of the church as a whole. Is it a blessing or a curse? Does it increase bible reading and bible knowledge? What about memorization of scripture? 

Just some thoughts.....

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------

