Featured Translations Why Are They Different And Can I Trust Them?"

Is there a bible version available that meets this criteria? I'm asking for the average bible student such as myself.

 

Opinions vary but in my view the NASB95 comes the closest to meeting the criteria. But, when reading it you must do two things, do not include the italicized words (added by the translators) and when footnoted with "Lit blah blah" read it using the literal footnote.

But all the modern translations are flawed to some degree, so looking at a few (NKJV, WEB, NET, HCSB and NASB) helps to identify the flaws in each. I no longer use nor recommend the ESV, NIV, or NLT which contain in my opinion too many accommodations to support Calvinism.

 

Great post!!

 

There is no such translation that comes anywhere near a 95% deal. Even interlinears which are not translations can't come close to that high of a percentage.

You very well know that there is't a direct one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English.

If you will carefully reconsider --all translations have to use contextual meanings a great deal of the time. the words of the original are vital --in context.

All translations have to go by the sense-for-sense method much of the time.

You aren't looking at things realistically.

Be careful or you will be in violation of the same rules you warn others about.

Of course translators of the NIV and NLT for instance,believe in verbal,plenary inspiration. To deny that would be slanderous.

When you use the term "just the thoughts" you need to be clear. Despite what you opened with (and upon further pontification you will change your idea) --since no version can consistently translate word-for-word ...a phrase-by-phrase,clause-by-clause,sentence-by-sentence method has to be employed much of the time. John Purvey of the 2nd Wycliffe Bible said as much. So have other translators down through the centuries.

You use the word "thoughts" in a denigrating way. When it comes to translating it doesn't mean some vague general idea. Many times a single word in the Greek has to be translated by a phrase. So the concept has to be communicated in that manner.

Yes,He used words --from an entirely different language. There is no set-in-stone right way to translate a given word. Of course when it comes to the English language words need to be clarified. That's a given. It certainly isn't rare,nor should it be.

 

Dr BOB is right on this though...

God inspired word for word in the original manuscripts. so the most important aspect of translation into another language is to make sure to heed that word for word as closely as possible, and to go away from it only when it makes better sense to do !

think the basic differences here on bible translation philosophy would be that versions like the Nasb/Nkjv would look to do the word for wrong first, then fall back to thought for thought, while Niv would do the reverse!

 

I do declare,you do not read many posts when you attempt to respond.
Read my post carefully.

That's right --the NASB/NKJV aim to do word for wrong first!
Again,read my previous post for clarity.

 

Yea, you can actually read the NIV.

 

But what good is being able to read "something" if the "something" you read isn't what the person writing it wanted it to say? :laugh:


^^^^ Think on that! (if you can read it!) :laugh:

 

can also read the Living Bible in its day, but id not use THAT for my primary study edition!

 

You need something even easier to read than the Living Bible!

There is no comparison with the old Living Bible and the NIV. You come up with the strangest things.

By the way,before some "low-information" folks don't realize it -- the NLTse of today is not anything like it's greatgrandpop.

 

It's certain that the original authors did not mean for some their words to be translated as the KJV has it. The original authors did not mean Easter, or Satyrs,or Unicorns.

They certainly did not intend to convey such a gem as the KJV rendering in Job 36:33 :"The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor."

Wha...t? Try the NET translation for some clarity:"His thunder announces the coming storm,the cattle also,concerning the storm's approach."

Or try this one on for size;it's a classic --1 Corinthians 6:12,13 from the KJV:"Ye are not straighteded in us,but ye are straightened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same,(I speak as unto children)be ye also enlarged."

The NLTse is much more understandable:"There is no lack of love on our part, but you have withheld your love from us. I am asking you to respond as if you were my own children. Open your hearts to us."

 

That's not 1 Corinthians, it's 2 Corinthians. :thumbs:

 

Thanks. Now how about responding to the content of my post?

 

How can you criticize these folks? First of all, a version's quality is a matter of opinion. Secondly, the Living Bibles are a horrible translation, literally changing the message. Thirdly, how can you call anyone a "low-information folk" with your limited understanding of the English language? Greatgrandpop?

Here is a verse for you, Hezikiah 6:12

带你傲慢自大、 有辱人格，自以为是的态度，把它放在太阳不发光的位置。

 

Yes they did...at least as the readers in the 17th Century understood those words they did.

Those words did not mean THEN what they always do now. They were, for their purposes perfectly reasonable translations.

 

It's old news --but you read poorly. If you will carefully reread my post I did not commend the old Living Bible.

Hopefully before too much more time you will do as Manasseh finally did.

 

The original authors meant no such thing as the KJV revisers mistakenly worded things. It wasn't their fault. They just didn't know. But using the word "Easter" was a classic boo boo.

 

Yes, they did....As readers in the 17th Century would have read those words....I didn't say: "As modern readers use those words". "Easter" was not a "boo-boo". Especially in Liturgical Literature it was used interchangeably with the word "Passover". Earlier English Bibles used "Easter" and Passover inter-changeably. Granted, it is unfortunate for the modern reader as we make a clear distinction, but they didn't at the time. Earlier English Translations translated it this way regularly. Anti-KJV's love to point out that languages change over time, they evolve, and I agree. So, it is wrong to use unjust weights and measures when they regularly attempt to super-impose modern meanings of words onto the KJV and force it to read as we would have it read.

The word "Easter" has simply become more specific in this age to refer only to the Christian celebration of Christ's Resurrection. It was not so at the time. As late as1729 The Daniel Mace New Testament translated it this way (I know...popular version right)! :laugh:

Modern Greeks still say "Pascha" when referring to what we call "Easter"....when specifically celebrating the Christian "Passover".

It still makes sense to say "Christ is our Passover"....at that time, it simply also made sense to say: "The Christian Passover" or conversely: The "Jewish Easter". Tyndale's Bible actually translates I Cor. 5:7 as "Christ our 'Easter Lamb' is sacrificed for us." Whereas we KNOW that the word is a reference to the "Passover lamb"....but so did Tyndale! The translators of those earlier Bibles knew what those words meant at the time. The Greek Pascha is not a debatable word that anyone needed a particularly informed Lexicon to translate. Everyone knew what the word meant. Liturgical Calendars from the 16th and 17th Centuries would actually mark the "Jewish Easter" and the "Christian Easter" sometimes.

If I were translating the KJV today, I would not translate Acts 12:14 as "Easter" to avoid confusion, but it confused no one in the 17th Century. I believe they chose "Easter" because it was post-resurrection, but that's just a random guess.

P.S.....No, I don't believe that Herod was celebrating a pagan holiday.............If he DID we wouldn't likely know about it, because he made a point of being as "Jewish" as possible to Jews who considered him an in-authentic usurper.

Quick question for clarity:
Are you using a "mouse" to navigate your computer right now?
If so, don't tell the KJV translators because they would lock you in a mental institution..........perhaps, unless you informed them that you lived in the 21st Century. Then again.....if you told them THAT!! then they'd still lock you up, so......just avoid discussing it with them altogether! :laugh:

 

Apparently the translators of the KJV did make a distinction as they changed "ester" of Tyndale's version 23 times to Passover. They only left it as Easter one time in Acts 12:4.
And most KJVO's will argue that it refers to a pagan festival, going so far as to say that it could not have been Passover because of the timing of the week of unleavened bread.