Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Most accurate Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 50888 | ||
Which Bible is toe most correct, word for word and why. Please give an answer that is enough detail to understand, and defend why you believ as you do. | ||||||
2 | Most accurate Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 50889 | ||
Dear Justme -- Let's begin with an illustration. A sentence in modern German says, "Nach hause heute gehen wir nicht." A LITERAL word-for-word translation is this: "To house today to go we not." Sounds awkward in English, doesn't it? But to a German the construction is perfectly natural, normal, conversational German. But if we wanted to translate that sentence into English, we would better serve our English readers by putting it into natural English. Thus, instead of following the German rules of grammar and syntax, we would follow the same rules in English and translate the sentence, "We're not going home today." The first translation is more literal than the second, but it is choppy and unnatural English. The second translation, while less literal, is nevertheless quite accurate and does say in a word-for-word manner in English what the word-for-word says in the German. The second translation is therefore not a paraphrase even though it is not rendered in the literal word order of the orignal German..... So it goes with all translations. Each language has its idioms, its own peculiar rules of grammar and syntax, its unique vocabulary -- all of which must be reckoned with by translators. Thus to call any single version of the Bible the best, the most accurate, the most readable, etc. is always a judgment call and thus somewhat subjective. But there are guidelines. There are essentially two schools of translation: [1] Word-for-word, insofar as this is possible and [2] Thought-for-thought. In the former, the translators strive to present in the receptor language as much transparency as possible of the donor language, e.g., from Greek into English. In the latter, the translators attempt to access what the original writer meant by what he said and cast his thoughts into the receptor language without being overly concerned with trying to replicate his exact words. The New International Version and the New Living Translaton have found favor with Bible readers who aren't fussy about word-for-word accuracy, but who want a Bible that reads smoothly and is relatively easy to understand. On the other hand, the King James Bible, the New King James Version, and the New American Standard Bible are among the favorites of those who wish their Bibles to say as closely as possible what the original authors said in their own languages. This, Justme, is as close as I can come to answering your question, which is a good one but on which you will likely not get a universal consensus of opinion. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Most accurate Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 50890 | ||
Thank you for taking the time to explain it. I had an idea it was sort that way but wanted some more assurance. agape, justme |
||||||
4 | Most accurate Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 50891 | ||
Justme, there are some versions that call themselves Bibles that I avoid like the plague. Among them, the New World Translation, the Living Bible, and the entire genre of translations that have adulterated the biblical texts in an attempt to be politically correct by making them gender neutral or gender inclusive in the English. The King James is excellent but presents challenges to many modern readers because of its out-dated language. The NASB is a reliable translation and well thought of by a large number of conservative scholars. I personally favor the NKJV, which in my view is more literary than some of the other modern versions, and, having grown up with the KJV, I consider the NKJV a sort of half-way house between the old and the new. In other words, it satisfies my longing for the old, familiar King James while at the same time saving me the trouble of remembering that 'suffer' means 'permit' and 'prevent' means 'to go before.'.... I've said before on the pages of this forum that it is my thinking that one should consult more than one version of Scripture but that he should at the same time pick and choose among the versions available one that he considers his main translation and let that be the one with which he becomes most acquainted and from which he commits verses of Scripture to memory. --Hank | ||||||
5 | Most accurate Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | justme | 50894 | ||
I had used the KJV as a child and teenager. I learned a lot od memory verses in KJV. Then I started using the NIV. Then when We became members of North Phoenix Baptist Church, Pastor Richard Jackson used the NASB Open Bible. Two years ago I got the Updated NASB. I really like it. I wish it was in the Open Bible again. I quess that has beed let go. My Pastor uses the NKJV and the Updated NASB reads very close. The NIV is very hard to follow along when Our pastor reads. When I study some times I have 6 or 7 seven versions out. So many versions and yet so many people don't read the Bible. Is America so blessed that so much is taken for granted? We help Wycliff translations and New Tribes Missions in translation support. Hard to believe some people do not even have John 3:16 in their native language! My memory is hard to get it to mmemorize as I woce did. But I can recall most of where verses are found, I never totally forget. I remember when I was a child on Sundays getting little pins we attached to a bigger pin as we were able to quote more verses. Life was easier to get children to learn then. Not like all the electronic games we have today. I hear a lot say that no one has the time, or interest anymore. I find a lot of comfort and encouragement in the Word. I wish I lived up to the Word better than I do. Psalm is one of my favorite chapters in the OT. agape, justme |
||||||