Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Psalm 119:105 ¶ Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Psalm 119:105 ¶ Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path. [Prov 6:23] |
Subject: ESV opinion poll |
Bible Note: Here's another note explaining his thoughts: Quote I really do not want to sound ungrateful or a perfectionist (altho I am actually am a perfectionist in recovery), but there is no single English Bible version with which I am totally satisfied. But let me balance that statement out by saying there are several English versions which I like and find very valuable. I would be content to have any single one of them with me if I were stranded on an island and didn't know how long I would be there. What I look for most in an English Bible is: -accuracy -standard, grammatical English -natural enough wordings that not only my head but also my heart is moved by the translation The version that currently moves me the most is The Message. However, it is not as accurate as I would prefer, altho, IMO, it's not, overall, an inaccurate translation. It just takes some liberties with the original text that I prefer it not have taken. For standard, grammatical, natural English, I like the CEV the best, but it, also, falls down a bit in terms of accuracy. For accuracy, these days I tend to go first to the NET Bible (that is a recent shift for me from going first to the NRSV). And I very much appreciate its copious footnotes. Now, if we could just get better quality English in the NET Bible, English which sounds like every sentence was written by a native speaker of English, and if the English were written in a way that it moved my soul, then I would have my ideal Bible. I also like the NLT. If I had to settle on only one single version, I think I would pick the NLT. It has, for me, a decent balance of the things I look for in an English version. Today my wife and I checked the passage in Luke 16 which we've been struggling with in our Cheyenne translation, in several English versions, and of all the versions, the NLT came out best, in our opinion, for how it rendered Luke 16:10-13. The Message had what we call "extraneous material" (content which we aren't really sure was intended in the Greek text). Surprisingly (to us), the CEV didn't do very well for this passage. The NLT shone. I look forward to NLT 2.0 Endquote I don't agree with him in different areas. I think retaining the Hebrew and Greek idioms, as well as the masculine pronouns, adds to the richness of the Scriptures. But that's why I'm not a translator. :-) Steve |