Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2358 | ||
By and large I incline to agree with the subjective dictum that the best version of the Bible is the one the reader understands and trusts, but with a caveat. What George Orwell said in "Animal Farm" -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- might well be said of today's bumper crop of Bible translations. The translator bug continues to go around still and it appears no one has found an antidote for the urge to translate. This is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that the Bible is still deemed to be of vital importance in the lives of human beings. It is good in the sense that new translations, armed with fresh up-to-date language and new knowledge about Bible languages and Bible times, remove a great deal of the shroud of obscurity about God's word in which the older versions unwittingly encased us. It is bad in the sense that the vast sea of translations virtually threatens to drown us. We are most of us utterly bewildered from time to time about which translation from the many choices available to us will be "our" Bible -- the one we carry to church, read from, study, meditate upon, memorize, hide in our hearts. The choice is not always easy. Concerning the caveat I mentioned, I submit a few questions that you might find reasonable to ask of any translation you consider. Do the translators hold the Bible to be the verbal, plenary, inerrant and infallible Word of God? Is their rendering faithful to the biblical manuscripts? (This answer will have to come from trusted reviewers unless one has a thorough knowledge of the ancient texts). What is their philosophy on translation -- as literal as possible, a loose paraphrase, or somewhere in between, e.g., a "dynamic equivalence" that attempts to cast the ancient languages in a thought pattern that purports to impact the reader of a modern languages in virtually the same way that the original message did to its readers. This philosophy of translation places an incredible responsibility on the translator. Is the translation obviously made by and primarily for adherents to a specific sect or cult? Is the translation rendered in clear, standard English (or whatever the receptor language may be)? Does it give honor to God and affirm the Deity of Jesus Christ? Finally, all things considered, is this a translation that I can live with, learn to feel at home with, and one that I can understand well enough come to a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to know Him more clearly, to follow Him more nearly, and to love Him more dearly? | ||||||
2 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2369 | ||
The translators of the King James Version said, " ... variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" and "We affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession ... contains the Word of God, nay is the Word of God." (Holy Bible, Contemporary English Version, New York: American Bible Society, 1995) . . . Note, the KJV translators themselves wrote: "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English ... is the Word of God." . . . Dear Hank: By and large I incline to agree with your posting. My remark that the best version of the Bible is the one the reader understands and trusts is truly a subjective answer. Objectively, of course, we have today English translations where the consensus is that they are highly accurate and faithful to the original languages. Then we have some translations or paraphrases, one relatively new one in particular, which you would never guess was a translation of the Bible, unless it said so on the title page or elsewhere. Do you get the *message*? . . . One of the many good points you make is when you say The choice of which translation will be "our" Bible is not always easy. A problem does not equal an impassable obstacle. Yet one problem today is deciding whether to carry to church the same version the pastor reads out of when he preaches. However, this I consider a minor issue. Everything in life is a trade-off. Our choices are limited and a choice to choose one alternative is also the choice to reject all others. I use 16 different translations of the Bible. When I teach, I usually carry a minimum of two translations to class with me -- one for maximum literal accuracy (NASB) and, since I currently teach teens, one for readability and clarity (NIV). . . . Your list of questions to ask of any translation you consider is right on the mark. Seriously, you could incorporate your list into the text of a brochure or journal article explaining what to look for in a Bible. With your permission I'd like to quote your list the next time I give a teaching related to Bible study, including the question of which translation to use. . . . You make a good point re which approach is used in the process of translation -- are we aiming for literal accuracy or dynamic equivalence or something in between? Regarding your final question for choosing a translation, is this a translation I can live with ... ?, I would have to say that for me the NASB meets or exceeds every criterion you list in the final question. . . . Surely there is much to consider when choosing a translation and you have made us aware of specific criteria to use. I would like to close by pointing out the guiding aim of the Lockman Foundation, producers of both the Amplified Bible and the New American Standard Bible -- principles which have been admirably adhered to in the translation of both the Amplified Bible and the NASB. (Disclaimer: I am neither an employee of nor in any way connected with the Lockman Foundation. I am nothing more than one of many registered users of SBForum) . . . The Fourfold Aim That Guides All of Our Translation Work. 1)These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. 2) They shall be grammatically correct. 3) They shall be understandable. 4) They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized. (The Lockman Foundation -- NASB Principles, http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/trans/nasbprin.htm) |
||||||
3 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 2384 | ||
Thanks, JVH, for your kind remarks. You most assuredly have my permission to quote or use anything I said in the note. I echo your enthusiasm for the NASB and applaud your fine judgment in using the NIV with teenagers. The language of the NIV probably hits to the heart of the young somewhat more poignantly than does the more formal language of the NASB which likely appeals to the more mature mind. At 66, I'm surely ripe for the NASB! In a review for Amazon.com of the NASB single-column reference Bible, I said that if I could have only one Bible, and never again be permitted to have any other, this is the Bible I would choose. | ||||||
4 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2403 | ||
I also thank you for your very kind and encouraging remarks. So you use the NASB single-column reference Bible? So do I. I first bought one in 1971 or 1972. The NASB has been my absolute favorite since then. About 2 or 3 years ago, when the NASB Update was very new, I purchased a copy of it in the single-column reference Bible, same edition, same features, physical dimensions, etc. that I had with my 1971 or 1972 NASB. | ||||||