Subject: What is the best version of the Bible? |
Bible Note: 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) |