The Holy Bible, a Buyer's Guide.

I appreciate your link to the article; I enjoyed reading it. The author puts the translations in the same order (or very similar order) to what I have seen before, but I liked his remarks on GE 1:1-2 - that was an interesting method of comparison. I also liked the info from each translator or translation committee. Some of these translations I have never even considered reading (NEB, NJB, NAB, NSRV) but is nice to see how they compare. My own experience has caused me to realize that in some translations I like most or nearly all of it, but some verses cause me to question why the translators picked certain words over others. In example read the HCSB (vs the KJV, NKJV, or NIV); in Psalm 23:6 the HCSB (which I like quite a bit) has a poorly selected method of translating the verse, yet I would not let one verse make the final decision for me on a translation. Good article, Bruce

 

Thanks for the link, I just wished he would have mentioned something about the NET Bible.

 

Hey A.F.

Thanks for bringing this article to our attention... I just read it.

It is fairly superficial, covering 27 versions in just over 7 standard pages, but still could be somewhat helpful for a very new Christian.

Most of these versions are well known to most of us on this board (I own 19 of them); the unique translations that standout are probably the Shocken Bible (which is only the Torah), the New Life Version, and the Cotton Patch Version (CPV). Those that are missing but perhaps should have been included (maybe instead of the three just mentioned) are the AMP, NWT, and Phillips... maybe the NET, if it was available in print at the time his article was being compiled sometime before Fall 2005.

Greenspoon allows comparision of Genesis 1:1-2 only because 3 of the versions he includes do not have a New Testament. The CPV is not even a complete NT, and consequently no OT verse comparison for it.

I thought it was valuable that Greenspoon segregated the versions by three translation methods which at least brings this factor into his target user's mind. He made no argument for or against the particular methods, and in the end he does not even make any recommendations at all (not even revealing his personal preferences).

 

Franklin, I would have to disagree with you that maybe the article should have included the NWT. This "translation" was put together so that Jehovah's Witnesses could have a Bible that didn't refute some of their errant teachings. The CWT of the Seventh Day Adventists and the JST of the Mormons are other such examples. I don't think any work, scholarly or superficial, should take these versions into consideration.

 

Based on the same criteria regarding the English Language there ought to be a copy of Shakespeare's works in every American's home, too. Maybe between the two fine works of older English we might absorb some culture.

 

Hey KeithM,

I thought that by writing anything about the NWT it would stir some controversy.

Of course, I agree with you that it is a false translation; but in the spirit of Greenspoon's article in which he obviously is inclusive of Catholic versions and Jewish versions, I thought it only fair that he perhaps (I did say perhaps!) review the JWs version. BYW, he didn't have hardly a negative word for any of them.

 

Franklin, I don't think the intent of Mr. Greenspoon was to pick and choose his favorite translations, but rather to show them in the three main categories that translations fall into. What he calls "Non-Literal Translations (with Extended Vocabulary" many people call "thought-for-thought" or "dynamic equivalence" translations. And what he calls "Non-Literal Translations (with Limited Language)" many people call paraphrases.

If Mr. Greenspoon were to include the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, he would also be obligated to include the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists and the Joseph Smith Translation (also called the Inspired Version) of the Mormons, as well as any other version errant groups may "translate" so that they have a Bible which doesn't refute some of their false and heretical teachings.