Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | International Standard Version? | Bible general Archive 2 | mitelt | 110696 | ||
Makarios, I appreciate your response. I am not familar with the HCSB. When I was in college, the Living Bible was the popular version. The college professors preferred the RSV for their classes and it was my favorite for many years. I have literally worn mine ragged. My daughter was using an NLT until she started college, then she switched to a NKJV. I am currently reading through a recently purchased NIV and using the NLT, RSV and an older NASB on the side. I am trying to become familar with the various translations. I like the idea of the "optimal equivalence" approach. I have had enough foreign language education to know that a literal translation doesn't always make the best translation. Literal makes sense when literal is readable and understandable. Dynamic Equivalence seems appropriate for clarity. Achieving the proper balance between the two would seem to provide the "best" result. Once again, thank you for the informative responses. |
||||||
2 | International Standard Version? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 110774 | ||
Mitelt, Thank you for sharing a bit about yourself and your background. I've always liked the RSV, save for a few 'troublesome' areas, but most generally the RSV (1952) is considered as one of the more literal Bible versions available, even for today's standards. What I mean by "literal versions" are those Bible versions that attempt to take a 'word for word' approach to translation, such as the NASB (1995 Update), NKJV (1982), ASV (1901), KJV (1611-1789), RSV (1952), and ESV (2001), as compared to other translations that attempt to take a 'thought for thought' approach, such as the CEV, The Message, the Living Bible, etc.. Somewhere in-between those two extremes you can find the NIV, HCSB, ISV, NLT, etc, that label themselves as "dynamic equivalence" translations: claiming to be not as 'free' in paraphrasing, but yet not completely faithful to the original Greek sentence structure either.. :-) However, not even the 'literal versions' or "formal equivalence" translations are in themselves through and through literal or "complete" representations of the Greek language into English. Even in the NASB, which has been touted as the "most literal or accurate to the Greek" is, in itself, not completely free of a bit of interpretation here and there (case in point: 1 Corinthians 7:36-38), even though it is rare. And that is to be expected, if a translation is to be understandable in English at all. If you are attempting to make a choice regarding a translation, then I would give this much prayer, and keep seeking information! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||