Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Hank | 27282 | ||
Hi, flinkywood! What an imaginative name. Something there is about it that makes me chuckle on this Monday morning. To add a gem of doubtful wisdom to the subject of all these new translations: I cut my biblical teeth on the King James Bible. When I was young -- it seems so long ago! -- the KJV was for all intents the only English version in common use. For its age and, to us modern folk, strange turns of phrase that were normal ways to say things in Jacobean English, it is yet to be toppled by modern versions in literary excellence. But for the most of us it becomes necessary -- and advisable -- to search out newer, clearer versions that better convey to us the eternal word of God. But should we play the unsettling game of "Bible grasshopper?" Is it wise to skip incessantly from one translation to another and to another, or is it better to choose one version carefully and adopt it as one's mainstay? To use a computer analogy, is it better to have one version designated as a "home page" at which one feels more comfortable at at home? I think so and believe there are cogent reasons why this is desirable. (1) Familiarity. The wording and format of a single version is an aid in finding passages. (2) Memorization. It makes no sense to memorize John 3:16 in one version and John 3:17 in another. (3) Marking and Notes. It is impractical and confusing to add personal markings in a dozen different translations. (4) Decision Making. It answers the questions, What translation should I read from today? and Which one should I take to church or Bible study class?........ There is much to be said in favor of using multiple translations to help clarify a difficult text, but much more to be said in favor of settling on a single translation as one's primary Bible. I've seen Bibles with four or more translations printed side by side in columns. They distract me no end, because I inevitably find myself concentrating on how a passage is being said and forgetting to notice what is being said. Choosing from among several excellent translations available a "main" Bible translation is largely a matter of personal taste. Three modern translations that come to mind as viable candidates are the NKJV, NASB, and NIV. Some of the newer versions, the Holman Christian Standard and the English Standard to name two, may well be rising stars with the potential of becoming the accepted standards of tomorrow. Time will tell. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | flinkywood | 27287 | ||
Hank, I was saved reading the NKJV. I like the lingo and I trust it. I also like renderings like of Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of... the evidence of..." Versus "assurance" (NASB)or "reality" (HCSB). It's just more poetical. A matter of opinion? You bet. A minister (a Navigator) I study with has a worn-out, duct-taped NASB from '71. As a Greek scholar, he loves the NASB. He himself admits it's a "bit wooden," and now wants to buy an updated NASB. Regarding translations, he told me all that matters is to read. I agree, and I'm just now settling into the NKJV as my full-on preference, with the NASB as secondary. But what's so amazing about Christianity is that the Holy Spirit is also teaching us. In any case you've really said it well, Hank. Colin. | ||||||
3 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Hank | 27297 | ||
Thanks, Colin. I'd agree, with some slight reservation, that even a less-than-top-notch translation that is read is better than the best that gathers dust on a shelf. I once read a review of translations in which the reviewer called the NKJV a "half-way house," meaning that it serves as a linkeage between the KJV and completely new translations. I like the NKJV too, and don't feel that the term "half-way house" is totally accurate or particularly complimentary of this fine work..... And I've also heard the term "wooden" applied to the readablility of the NASB (not a particularly complimentary term either). To some degree this may have been true of certain locutions in the 1971 edition, but having used the 1995 Update to a certain degree, I believe that the translators and editors have made many of the rough places smoother in the latter edition. All things considered, I believe we have a number of good, trustworthy translations in English and none of them can be said to set a standard by which all others must be measured. I avoid flawed translations such as the New World and the paraphrased versions. Beyond that, as I said in a former post, it's largely up to one's own taste and preference which version he chooses. Some years ago a dear old lady (now deceased) at the church I belong to said to me, "These new versions just don't do anything for me. They don't seem like the Bible to me. I stick with the King James." She could certainly have made a worse choice. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Makarios | 27376 | ||
Greetings Hank, Of course, I'm sure that you would concede that the KJV (and Vulgate before it) was the supreme translation by which all others were judged from approximately 1640 to 1970.. And, as you have said before, its literary quality continues to be compared to that of the newest translations, since you have also stated that there is not a translation yet to match its literary mastery.. Today, we have a newer standard, and that standard is based upon overall quality, and not just on literary excellence. I believe that there are two groups- those who believe in having a more familiar or easy to understand version and those who believe in absolute accuracy. This divergence in thought would likely stem from the pinpoint accuracy of the American Standard Version, 1901, which trumped the KJV in accuracy, but not in literary form, being the cause for the beginning of the two "groups" of thought, even though the KJV is highly accurate itself. I believe that the ASV became the "standard by which all other translations were judged" when it became clear that no other translation before it had even come close to its pinpoint accuracy to the original languages. The Revised Standard (there's that word again 'standard'), the NASB and most of the newer translations uphold the ASV in a "Godfather" type status as far as the standard to which all others must be judged. I believe that the NASB, which claims direct lineage from the ASV, is the new "standard bearer" for our present day, a translation that is second to none in accuracy among today's translations, and is now highly respected. Why is it such a highly respected translation? Because it is the new standard bearer of accuracy, regardless of anyone's opinion. However, for the second method of thought, that being "clarity", the NIV has clearly and overwhelmingly become the new standard bearer of that group, being the translation by which all dynamically equivalent translations are judged. So yes, we do have a few "leaders" amongst today's translations, and they have proven themselves not only in sales but also in quality and in the respected opinions of those who make a living or who merely live to read and study the Bible. Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
5 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Hank | 27388 | ||
Nolan, I'll readily concede that the King James Bible has been held in great respect, even awe, for centuries. But I would quibble over whether it was unanimously adjudged the supreme standard during all those years. It would depend in large measure on who did the adjudication. Almost all publishers seem to want to weave the words "new" or "standard" into the names of their translations. The words are crippled from overuse, and I suspect publishers would be hard put to it to give us any real sense of what they are trying to say when they call their version "standard." In the United Kingdom the KJV is known as the Auhorized Version. I read somewhere that some people, upon being asked who authorized this version, have actually answered, "Why, God did, of course!"..... Well, there are good translations but no perfect ones, because a translation, even the best one, loses something of the dynamic of the original. I like the story about humorist James Thurber who put a reverse twist to this fact about translation. When a young lady told Thurber, obviously to try to impress him with her learning, that his stories were even funnier in French, his retort was, "Well, they do lose something in the original."--- Thanks for your further thoughts on this interesting topic, Nolan, and thanks for your kind words about mine. God bless, my friend. --Hank | ||||||
6 | Why include "even" in John 1:12 | John 1:12 | Makarios | 27399 | ||
Hank, You are welcome, my friend! I readily agree that there is absolutely no perfect translation. Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||