Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Jun 14, 2013.
Found this interesting chart
Difference between versions
Choosing a Bible Translation
Your "interesting chart" was full of errors.
The following were listed as formal equivalents:CEV,Jerusalem Bible,New Century Version,and J.B.Phillips! That's nonsense.
The NAB was put in the dynamic category even though a note said it was more direct than the JB! What kind of reasoning is that?The 21st century KJV was categorized as being functionally equivalent as well as the NRSV.
The chart was most unhelpful and just plain wrong.
The person who put this together was a joke.
This wasn't worth a mite.
That first chart is not nearly as helpful as it should be due to the errors.
The other pieces are okay.
Would you agree with the versions list on Allan bibles?
nasb most literal, then esv, then Nkjv/Kjv, then HCSb, and NIV to the "more" side of being literal than the Nlt?
"I think it is fair to conclude that in terms of translation philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB."
So you would say it as being Nasb/Nkjv/Kjv as most literal/formal and Esv/Niv/HCSB as all being mediating versions?
Thye NASBU,NKJV and KJV are more form-oriented. The ESV is slightly less than those. The latter is not really a mediating version. What Rod Decker meant was that when it comes down to the actual translation behind the ESV --the translational method of the NIV is on the same page. But most of the Preface of the ESV does not actually represent the translational method that was employed.
So the Esv should be seen as being the Niv with more of a reading similair to say the Kjv?
the Esv tio me reads quitesimilar to the Kjv, with updated vocabulary!
I don't know about that.
It does read a lot like the KJV. Perhaps there is a comparison somewhere in which the commonalities are noted. I certainly haven't done one and have no inclination to do so.
There is only some updated vocabulary. The ESV has hardly modernized anything. That's because not much real translation went into the ESV translation! It's pretty much an RSV mildly dusted off. There are many chapters that were untouched by any translating hands in the 21st century.
So it woul dbe like when the Nasb updated the 1901 Asv?
the NRSV was thecritical/liberal revision of the Rsv?
Seriously,can't you take your time to spell correctly and use better grammar?
In my estimation D.A. Carson is the best theologian living today. In a review of the NRSV he concludes with the thought that it is "a jolly good version."
Still was the revision done to suit those holding to a critical/liberal view of scriptures and the faith, correct?
anyone else think this is good info
I think the best word for word translation philosophy version is the NASB95. Now good comparison bibles are the NET, HCSB, NKJV and WEB.
Analysis has shown that one version (forever nameless) which claims to be a formal equivalence translation, departed quite significantly from the grammatical structure presented in the Greek.
First chart reads like an advertisement for the ESV. Notice the superlatives.
The ESV uses the classic principles of word-for-word translation and literary excellence as exemplified by the KJV and most recently the RSV. Highly accurate, the ESV closely reflects the original meaning of the text in clear, readable, enduring English.
Especially popular among Evangelicals and others who want a word-for-word translation of the original manuscripts, this translation was prepared as an update of the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV).
Called "international" because it is transdenominational and contains the work of many scholars from many English-speaking nations, the NIV is a straightforward translation in contemporary English.
nkjv or esv
I purchased a nkjv shortly after the first release. I have been well satisfied with the language. Using the Bible Gateway app on my tablet, I have been doing a side by side comparison of the nkjv and the esv. I have found numerous passages where the esv left out parts of verses, to the point of loosing some of the point of the passage. Now what I do not know is whether this is supported by better method of translation from the original scriptures, or just style. Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated. Thanks.
The ESV uses a different family of manuscripts than the NKJV. Depending on which manuscript you feel is the best, the ESV is "missing verses", or the NKJV "added verses".
Ok, could you elaborate on that? I wish to make sure that I am using the best rendition of the scriptures. Many are starting to use the esv, so before I go get one, i am trying to be sure of the rendition.
About the RSV (the National Council of Churches' Revised Standard Version)