Best Translation

....or, indeed, before it?

 

This is way off topic, but my kids used to watch a children's show called Mr. Dressup. You look AMAZINGLY like the guy on that show!







Sorry.........back to topic! :saint:

 

The 'best' English translation has probably yet to be produced.

 

Dr. Cassidy is right: you have to qualify what you mean by "best." Do you want the best literal translation? Best dynamic one? Best of the two textforms?

The NASB is considered to be the most literal of the best mss. That said, that begs the question, doesn't it?

True enough, the NASB is no longer as wooden as people claim, though the ESV reads a bit smoother by design as does the HCSB. However, the NASB is more literal than the both of them. NET is literal and very readable, but with some controversial renderings (the notes are invaluable if you are into mss differences).

There are many good Bible translations you can trust. Thanks be to God!

 

I grant that it is readable. But I wouldn't cast it in the literal category. Even Hall Harris (the Project Director and Managing Editor for the NET Bible) says that the notes are formal while the translation itself is "somewhat more functionally [or dynamically] equivalent."

I don't agree with the following fellow sometimes,but here he has a point. Michael D.Marlowe --of the Bible Researcher website says:"The method of translation used in the NET Bible in its present form (2006) is inconsistent,but in general it is less literal than the New International Version. The translators have for the most part employed a dynamic equivalence method..."

Your buddy,Superman Rick Mansfield said in his review of the NET Bible:"I would place it slightly right of the NIV on the scale from formal on the left and dynamic on the right,but others may disagree."

It's a mediating version --just speaking of the translation,but leaning more to the dynamic side of things in comparison with the NIV,ISV, and HCSB. (In my ever so HO).

 

Tom...

Thank you for sharing this excellent article. If I may, I would like to quote two paragraphs at the end of Dr. Bauder's article.

In sum, a good version of the Bible will be accurate, but it will not oversimplify. It will choose elevated language because it aims to shape feeling as well as thinking. It should be widely used and readily shared. It must leave the reader with the impression that the book wasn’t just written yesterday. It ought to be just a bit archaic.

In my opinion, the King James Version is the only translation of Holy Scripture into English that meets these criteria. It is not just a good version, it is a great one. It is both a great translation and a great work of literature. For me, the use of the King James Version is not simply a matter of nostalgia or sentimentality. It is unsurpassed for use in the corporate church setting, and it is as good as any for private devotional reading.​

I agree.

...Bob

 

I just don't like the use of the word only, but it is an opinion.

 

The church I was saved at was a KJVO church, and it was the version I used exclusively for several years.

Now however, I especially enjoy the NLT.

 

The version I prefer is the King James Version, the reason I use it may seem funny to some.

Several years ago I suffered a Nervous Breakdown, and my therapist was a Christian counselor. In order to help my concentration he suggested I use the King James Version for awhile [I was using the NIV] to see if having to really look at every word I read to make sure of it's correct meaning would help my damaged concentration.

My concentration isn't quite what it used to be but it has improved, I believe, because I used the King James as part of my therapy. Neither my therapist nor I are by any means in the KJVO camp [he uses the NIV], but he hit on a unique form of therapy that helped me.

 

TNIV and NRSV are what I use most of the time. Occasionally the NLT especially in the Gospels.

Have at one point used all the major translations and settled on these as my favorite.

KJV - don't like it, accuracy is medium at best, language dated

NASBU - fine, but sections just get unreadable it is so literal, I'm sure I'm missing the point

ESV - for a modern version, it seems dated already

NIV - fine, like the TNIV better

NKJV - don't like it, would rather read the KJV

I have enjoyed reading The Voice and The Message, awaiting the complete Common English Bible the New Testament has been interesting

 

Harsh... :tear:

 

Harsh, how so?

 

It sounds really strange to me.

 

There was nothing harsh in his post. But,then again,people have seen things that were not there in some of my posts also.