Talk:Messianic Bible translations

message: Would this translation be worthy of adding to the main list?
Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Messianic-Version-Bible-ebook/dp/B00EPR3URE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.30.162 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About The New Messianic Version of the Bible? 

message: A Messianic Bible Translation can be defined as a translation of the Bible that is a) Produced by a Messianic Jewish translator/organization b)Translates the Tanakh based on the Masoretic text c) Does not contain antinomian translational renderings present in most Christian Bible translations, and USUALLY but not NECESSARILY d)Renders names and places in Hebraized format.
The "Hebrew Names" version of the World English Bible meets none but the fourth of the above criteria (which is not truly essential for a MJ translation) and is produced by a conventional Christian denominational organization, not a Messianic Jewish organization. Furthermore, although it does render original Hebrew names/places, it pronounces the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which NO Messianic translations that I know of do, and which the majority of Messianics find objectionable or are at the very least uncomfortable with. The vast majority of Messianic Bible translations would meet all four criteria, and render the sacred Tetragrammaton as "Adonai" or "El<...>, not as a pronounced Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh"
That is why I am removing it from this list. Thank you, and please raise any objections here. Noogster 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to know this, but if it is a common view (and not simply your view) perhaps this "definition" should be stated in the article.  I'd like to avoid misunderstandings of article intent as happened at Jewish English Bible translations.  Actually, I would like to see a list of "Jew-targeted" translations (e.g. WEB) as well.  Do we need yet another article for this?  I'm hoping not.  I think it would be informative to put both there, with a section for messianic translations and another for translations that a non-messianic might consider messianic. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To further clarify my earlier comment: you say, "A Messianic Bible Translation can be defined as [...]", and you're right, it can be defined that way, but a plain reading of the title gives the impression of a broader definition.  This is the point I was trying to make before; a plain reading by those "outside the circle" yields a different definition than what "insiders" would understand it to be.  I think WP should appeal to both groups by including both types here, but denoting the distinction.  Where else is a reader going to go to find translations like WEB:ME?  The casual reader would certainly expect to find it right here.  We certainly can create another article (indeed, the previous discussion precipitated this article) but how far do you split hairs? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think putting the "Hebrew Names" version of the World English Bible and anything similar into a new article called Missionary Bible Translations would be very appropriate; there have been a tremendous number of such Bibles through history. I can pretty assuredly tell you that they don't belong in this Messianic Bible Translations article, though, because Messianic Bible translations are always produced by a Messianic translator/organization, and are generally produced primarily to serve the needs of Messianic congregations/synagogues and not as missionary outreaches. Noogster 01:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...if you'd rather go that route.  Can you suggest a better name, though?  Any translation can be used by missionaries...often the point of the translation is to evangelize a new group of people.  What about Jewish missionary bible translations?  That's possibly confusing—is "Jewish" describing the evangelizer or the evanglized?  This is partly why I suggested combining both here, but making the distinction between them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 05:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see no conflict with calling such an article Missionary bible translations, because it would be understood that such translations are made primarily for missionary purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noogster (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that a section on a translation from Aramaic has been inserted. What makes a translation from Aramaic specifically "Messianic"?  I don't think Lamsa's was particularly Messianic?  Help us think.Pete unseth (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it. There's no indication that it's notable as a Bible translation or that it's a Messianic translation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do I consider a "Messianic Bible Translation"? 

message: Quoted: but also employs the Hebrew יהוה‎ for the proper name of God throughout, contrary to Jewish tradition. Let's be very careful about phrasing this so as not to confuse uninitiated readers of this article. The four Hebrew letters Yud-Heh-Vauv-Heh simply being written on paper is not contrary to Jewish tradition (if you ever see "Adonai" or "HaShem" on a Torah scroll then the scroll is definitely not kosher), it is the attempted PRONUNCIATION of the Name that is. As far as I'm concerned they could be simply writing out (in unpointed Hebrew) what is already there in the Hebrew manuscripts in order to provide maximal theological leeway to those that are reading from the text. Noogster 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've presented a satisfactory verbal compromise. Noogster 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about "contrary to Jewish tradition" 

message: Someone might like to research a couple of other Messianic bible translations which are gaining wide circulation:
1. Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition (RSTNE) which is now running into its third edition. It is published by [Your Arms to Israel].
2. Hebraic-Roots Version (HRV) which uniquely seeks the Aramaic and Hebraic roots of the NT employing the Peshitta and other Syriac texts. It is published by the producers of the ISRV which appears in the main article [ISR] (Landau7 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSTNE and HRV Messianic Bibles 

message: I am surprised that the ESV is included in the category of being a Messianic translation. I guess it brings us again to "What is a Messianic translation?" One wiki-editor once even objected to my categorization of Heinz Cassirer's translation of the New Testament as being Messianic. I don't find the ESV to be particularly Messianic. 
But there is a simpler issue: is this about the ESV or a specific edition with study notes. Whoever inserted this originally, did they mean the ESV text or the study edition? Some clarificatino of this would be helpful. Peaceably Pete unseth (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the sources that I reviewed that discuss the ESV and the ESV Study Bible, I found absolutely nothing that would make the think either text would be attractive to or used by MJs.  Earlier today, I updated the article to reflect that finding.  I am not an MJ myself and so I didn't think it would be right for me to remove the entry altogether, but if you have better knowledge about what MJs actually use, and you know that the ESV and/or the ESV Study Bible are not actually used by MJs, please go ahead and remove it from the article. Zad68 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESV 

message: I and a few other editors have been improving an article called Sacred Name Bibles and was hoping to include some of these Bibles in that category. Sacred Name Bibles use the Name. The other point I would like to mention is that, a "Messianic Bible" is going to clash with a group called the Assemblies of Yahweh. They are called "Messianic Israelites" and so there might be an issue there as they could just as easily use the term "Messianic Bible" to describe the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. If someone could get back to me about the former point that would be brilliant! (SNMovement) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Messianic Bibles" a problematical term 

message: I come here because I've been on a site that offer Messianic Bible, saying it corrects some mistakes of translation of English Bible.
But what are the mistakes and the difference between them?
For instance, is a Messianic Bible trinitary?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B894:712F:A1B7:285C (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to have the difference better explained and compared 

message: Was the name originally unpronounceable? No. People pronounced it all the time, say, in the period when the Bible was written. Was the name later traditionally unpronounceable? Yes. Jewish tradition forbade pronouncing it. Did it later become actually unpronounceable? Sort of. The Masoretes in the middle ages put some vowels on it that are just ... not workable, so if one was just going by the name with the traditional nekudos one couldn't be sure how it was pronounced. Is it's pronunciation still unknown? The consensus of scholars is that it was Yahweh, and has been for over a century.
In that sense it's no more unpronounceable than the name Habakkuk. Was the name Habakkuk originally pronounced with a 'v' or 'b' sound on that second consonant? I dunno. But I wouldn't call it unpronounceable. So YHWH is unpronounceable in certain religious contexts but pronounceable in the sense that it can in fact be pronounced, or at the very least a well-supported scholarly reconstruction can be pronounced. 
I would hope there is some better way to deal with this issue that just yanking the bare word "unpronounceable" in and out of an article. Alephb (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pronounce it however you'd like. I'm outta here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dealt with enough fringey stuff lately. Not touching that Nehemiah Gordon reference with a ten-foot pole. Alephb (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpronounceable 

message: In the lead section, the English language is specified as if it's part of the definition. Is it really intended that way? It seems to me that "translated into a modern language" would reasonably be a defining characteristic, thus excluding purely original-language publications - but I think if such a book were published in (for example) Spanish or Chinese, it ought to qualify. It may be true that all existing examples do happen to be in English, and I'm not arguing that point. I just doubt that English should define the category. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English only?