Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | kalos | 603 | ||
. . . The best Bible version is the one YOU use -- the one you can understand AND trust. . . . If you asked 20 different people what's the best version, you would get 20 different answers. . . . First you have to answer the question, best for what? What will you be using this Bible for -- general reading, devotional reading, personal study, evangelism, teaching youth, etc.? . . . I personally use 16 different versions of the Bible. What are my top recommendations? . . . They are, in alphabetical order: . . . The Amplified Bible . . . New American Standard Bible . . . New International Version . . . New King James Version. . . . Which is my personal favorite over all, for reading, study, teaching, memorization, devotional reading, etc.? It's the New American Standard Version of the Bible. The New American Standard has been widely acclaimed as "the most literally accurate translation" from the original languages. Today the NASB remains the most literally accurate Bible in the English language. I use many translations every week, but after 30 years of reading, studying, teaching and praying in the NASB, it is my personal favorite over all the others. . . . The advocates of the King James Only movement are violently opposed to any and all modern translations. Their view is the KJV is the only perfect (without error) English Bible in existence. I merely define their views, as I understand them. I refuse to be drawn into a dispute over the King James Only controversy. I personally love and respect the King James and have done all my memory work in it. But is it the most literally accurate Bible in the English language? No. While it contains a remarkable degree of general accuracy, it cannot and does not make the claim for itself of being the only perfect English translation. NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE. Inerrancy can be said to apply only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No honest Bible scholar would claim otherwise. . . . Brothers and sisters, let us live at peace with one another. Back to my original answer: The best Bible version is the one you use -- the one you can understand AND trust. |
||||||
2 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20252 | ||
THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION Much discussion centers on which translations are preferred and why. It is also mentioned that you should pick a translation based on the purpose for which you will use it -- reading, studying, memorization, and so on. Ultimately, the issue of dynamic vs. formal equivalence is brought in -- ("thought-for-thought" vs. "word-for-word" translation). This was the issue at the time the NIV was released in 1984 and, at that time, it seemed that dynamic equivalence was very acceptable and did not at all qualify a translation to be called a paraphrase. Nowadays, however, it seems that dynamic equivalence is confused with the "thought-for-thought" terminology used by paraphrase versions and, so, dynamic equivalence is in many cases regarded AS A paraphrases, (although dyn. equiv. translations like the NIV, while playing loose with formal aspects, translates the text quite well, as a matter of fact). New bible translations these days try to distance themselves from the others by creating new terminology. They say we are not stiff and rigid like the formal equivalents and we are not a paraphrase like the dynamic equivalents (as though "dynamic equivalence" ever was meant to be synonymous with "paraphrase"). The new translations claim to be different: "our translation," they say, "follows the principle of 'natural equivalent,' 'optimal equivalent,' 'essentially literal,' and similar terms." It sounds a lot like a bunch of public relations hype. They can't ALL have stumbled on to that perfect middle-of-the-road third translational option that is neither too strict or too loose! What I'm trying to get to is that I seldom hear much about the PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION. Rather than hear about the individual versions -- for we can usually figure out which category they fall into -- I would like to hear more discussion about which is the better translational approach. Before we discuss "which" Bible translation as best, we should first understand which "philosophy of translation" is best. Since each word of the autographs were "inspired" by God, should we seek to translate in a word-for-word fashion, even following the grammatic structure as much as possible? (Maybe we should all be reading Young's Literal Translation.) On the downside, this word-for-word approach ignores the fact that different languages have different syntax, grammatical forms, and structural patterns -- (and not only that, but strict translation can sometimes communicate something different into the receptor language than what was intended in the original language). If Paul had written in English, perhaps even he would not have put the phrases in the same order that we translate them based on the literal translation of Greek. On the other hand, the further we move away from the God-given structure in Greek, the more of the translators' interpretive skills have to come into play -- no matter how much he tries to stay true to the original. The same goes for trying to communicate to today's American the same thoughts that we "assume" would have been put into the minds of the ancient Greek upon hearing the Scripture. To me, it seems to be an insoluble dilemma, although it would seem best to err on the side of caution. Go with the most literal and then, just as we exegete a passage for meaning -- we must exegete our way across from the stiffness of the literal rendering in English to what would have been more surely meant and intended for the audience. In other words, maybe the "interpretive" work is for all of us and not for those who do the translating, (although you would think that the "experts" who translate would be better qualified to employ interpretive skills than the laity; so maybe a slightly more "dynamic" version WOULD be better!?). Personally, I am often disappointed by the strange readability of the NASB and often find that I'm getting closer to the "sense" of the words through the NIV, although I know that the NASB is one of the most, if not the most, strict, literal translation there is in English. If anyone else has thought about things from this perspective I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Regards, waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||