Subject: International Standard Version? |
Bible Note: Mitelt, Thank you for sharing a bit about yourself and your background. I've always liked the RSV, save for a few 'troublesome' areas, but most generally the RSV (1952) is considered as one of the more literal Bible versions available, even for today's standards. What I mean by "literal versions" are those Bible versions that attempt to take a 'word for word' approach to translation, such as the NASB (1995 Update), NKJV (1982), ASV (1901), KJV (1611-1789), RSV (1952), and ESV (2001), as compared to other translations that attempt to take a 'thought for thought' approach, such as the CEV, The Message, the Living Bible, etc.. Somewhere in-between those two extremes you can find the NIV, HCSB, ISV, NLT, etc, that label themselves as "dynamic equivalence" translations: claiming to be not as 'free' in paraphrasing, but yet not completely faithful to the original Greek sentence structure either.. :-) However, not even the 'literal versions' or "formal equivalence" translations are in themselves through and through literal or "complete" representations of the Greek language into English. Even in the NASB, which has been touted as the "most literal or accurate to the Greek" is, in itself, not completely free of a bit of interpretation here and there (case in point: 1 Corinthians 7:36-38), even though it is rare. And that is to be expected, if a translation is to be understandable in English at all. If you are attempting to make a choice regarding a translation, then I would give this much prayer, and keep seeking information! Blessings to you, Makarios |