Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | CDBJ | 166689 | ||
With your understanding of the Bible, which version is the most accurate? CDBJ |
||||||
2 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Huron | 166695 | ||
I really believe that the NASB, and the NASB updated version are the most accurate. When the shortcomings of the NASB are discussed, it usually regards the fact that the NASB may be difficult to read aloud due to the fact that it places the emphasis on accuracy rather than English word order. It has been said that the NASB is so accurate that you could reverse translate it back into the original Greek! The KJV, RSV, NKJV, and the NIV are also very good and have their following. The NIV may at times "interpret" rather than translate, which gives you a translation that tells you what the translators think the Greek "MEANS" rather than what it "SAYS." Usually though, the NIV translators were right on. The NIV is a very readable translation. The RSV has the flow of the KJV, but is easier to understand. It does have its detractors though, usually regarding the choice of the work young woman -vs- virgin in Isiah 7. The KJV has beautiful flow. The language is dated though, and may cause comprehension difficulty. It is a good version for memeory work because it flows so well. While it is a good literal translation, there are verses in the KJV that may not have been written in the original books of the New Testament. Examples are Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. While some people will use no other version and claim that other versions are an abomination, it is important to remember that even the KJV had much criticism when it first came out. The NKJV is also good, but relies largely on the same manuscripts as the KJV. It will include the longer ending of Mark for instance. |
||||||
3 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166726 | ||
Excellent post, most excellent Huron! To carry your fine observations of the NASB a trifle farther, it might be noted that it is the considered opinion of this writer that to a certain degree the NASB has become the victim of a somewhat nasty and essentially inaccurate rumor; to wit, that in its herculean efforts to be literal it has inadventently become what the critics have called "a wooden translation." I sometimes feel like countering with, "Well, if I were a translation, I'd sooner be wooden than plastic. And would prefer to be literal than approximate, to be the real McCoy than the shadowy "dynamic equivalent" of the real thing. It'd rather give praises to God by translating the actual phrases of God than dumping off my own gussied-up paraphrases." .... Actually, I do get a little tired of hearing some of these wild-eyed disciples of the dynamic equivalence/paraphrase school carp on the woodeness of such excellent formal, word-for-word translations as the NASB 1995 Update. I've been hanging around words for many decades and even majored in English, and so lay claim to knowing a thing or two about putting English words together in order to be able to say something meaningful. And I find that by and large the NASB reads well. It is clear and comprehensible. I'll concede it doesn't read, as a blurb for a certain sorry paraphrased version announced upon its publication some years ago, "like today's newspaper", a fact for which I am enormously grateful and stand in admiration of the good sense of the NASB translators! --Hank | ||||||
4 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 166731 | ||
Greetings Hank! Excellent comments, as usual my friend! My pet peeve from the Greek perspective is the clear cut distinction made between 'literal' and 'dynamic equivalent'. Having worked from the Greek for a number of years now, I know that all translations engage in some dynamic equivalence out of necessity. :-) Because of the nature of Greek, there is no such thing as a strictly literal translation. There are many times when the verb is not supplied in the Greek. The translator must supply it in order to make sense in English. There are many cases where clauses are not completed in Greek, and the translator must finish them to make sense in English. Every translation changes the word order to make sense in English. Then, there are the cases where the translator isn't even sure what a particular word means. I don't say this to disparage our translations. I simply hope that people realize that there is no true 'literal' translation. There are certainly some that are more literal than others though! ;-) The NASB is an excellent translation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 166735 | ||
Brother Tim: Good to hear from you and enlightening to ponder your provocative points! Running parallel to, as I believe it does, your essential arguments and philosophy on Bible translation, the preface to the English Standard Version (ESV) says, in part: ....... "The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. ... In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a 'thought-for-thought' rather than 'word-for-word' translation philosophy, emphasizing 'dynamic equivalence' rather than 'essentially literal' meaning of the original. A 'thought-for-thought' translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture. Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between 'formal equivalence' in expression and 'functional equivalence' in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within the framework we have sought to be 'as literal as possible' while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original, and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts." ...... And much of what the ESV translation team have said of their work, the NASB team could say, and have said, of theirs. But this is not so of the highly paraphrased versions. Some of them have gone far afield of the original texts, even to the extent in some cases, and in my opinion, of perverting the sacred text. And for the "What it's Worth Department" I will venture the opinion that the NASB and the ESV just may be in a dead heat for the overall best translations currently available in modern English. I have no reservations about recommending both of them. I believe they deliver "The Message" far better and more accurately than many others, including that popular paraphrase that calls itself by that name. --Hank | ||||||
6 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Morant61 | 166740 | ||
Greetings Hank! I'm not much for paraphrases myself! :-) Even though the Message is of Nazarene origin, I don't care much for it. A variety of translations though can be a very helpful thing, especially if one does not know the original languages. Keep up the good work my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||