The Amplified Bible the Most Accurate Translation?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Kiffin, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was visiting CBD's Bible translation comparison and on the Accuracy level chart the Amplified Bible was rated as the most accurate English Bible while the NASB was the second most accurate English translation. The Message paraphrase ended up dead last as the least accurate (not a suprise!). Here is the chart http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content/129496710?page=73521&sp=1003

    You have to click on one of the Bible translations to see where they rank. Anyone agree or disagree that The Amplified Bible and the NASB are the two most accurate English translations? Curious about you thoughts (Though I hope there are no coments that this is a Luciferian conspiracy by the Alexandrian cult! [​IMG] )
     
  2. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Accurate is a misnomer. The Amplified Bible is the most literal (as opposed to dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), while the Message is the most "free."
     
  3. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I basically agree with you Scott though not completely. Literal translations such as the Amplified, NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV are generaly better at giving the most accurate reading of the text in my opinion BUT a strictly literal translation is at time awkward such as the NASB. Of course there are no perfect translations.

    The NIV is my favorite of the free translations. It gives a great translation of 2 Tim 3:16 "all scripture is God breathed" Free Translations such as the NIV often are easier to read yet often are deficient in areas of accurately conveying the meaning of the text because they too often sacrifice literalness for more readability. The new Holman Christian Standard Bible NT seems to attempt at being both literal and free and in my opinion is far superior to the NIV. I look foward to the HCSB coming out in full Bible form in the spring.

    The Message is in my opinion a awful paraphrase that might be good to read for casual reading while you are in the Doctor's office or to use for comparison reading when using a more solid translation such as the ESV, Amplified, NASB, NKJV, NIV.

    Getting back to the Amplified...I find that most people either love it or hate it. I find it to make the Scriptures come alive when I read it though there are places I sometimes may not agree with the Amplification - But then again all Translations have their weaknesses. I personaly think a person could get much out of the Amplified because it is both readable and literal (Though many find it's amplifications distraction)and it opens up the original meaning of Holy Writ better than most translations.
     
  4. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Geneva isn't on there. Where does it rank?
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have had very little experience with the Amplified Bible, so I am not going to comment further about it.

    I have had very much experience with the NASB and I am becoming familiar with the NASB Update. I don't believe that there is any question but what the NASB translates Greek verb tenses more accurately than any other translation. As for the other elements of language, it is either the most accurate or one of the leading contenders. The number one criticism of the NASB is that although it is very accurate, its own accuracy makes it so difficult for the average reader to understand that they get from it an inaccurate impression of what the Bible actually says. If the reader does not recognize the force of a past perfect participle, what value is there in using it? My answer to that question is that the reader of the NASB has right in front of him the past perfect participle and although he may not know the name of it, and he may not at first recognize the force of it, he may eventually come to recognize it. If, on the other hand, he uses a simplified translation, he will never come to know the force of the past perfect participle.

    Had God wanted to, he could have written a simplified Bible, but he didn’t. The Bible that He wrote uses some complicated language structure because the concepts that it teaches us require it. I believe that it is very important to keep in mind that the large majority of the original recipients of the Biblical message received it in oral form rather than written form even though the language structure is in places extremely complex (see for example the Greek text of Eph. 1. where vv. 3-14 are one highly complex sentence). Most of us are able to read the Bible and can re-read and re-read the complex language until we understand it. Some people are too lazy and if we give them a simplified Bible and tell them that it is the word of God, they will read that rather than what God really had to say. If God called you up on the telephone and began speaking in Greek, what kind of a translator would you want to come to the phone and translate the message for you? Personally, I would want a translator who would translate the message as close to a word for word translation that I could make sense of, being sensitive, of course to differences in Greek and English idioms, but in no way simplifying the message.
     

Share This Page

Loading...