Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Jun 22, 2011.
As compared to the Greek and Hebrew source texts?
Line 'em up, throw a dart at them and the one that gets hit is it.
Seriously, how does one go about answering this? You need to define the words "accurate" and "faithful" before we could even start to make comparisons.
IMHO it's like comparing grocery stores- Walmart is a good everyman version, Kroger is a step up, Publix would be a little higher, etc. but they all get the job done.
Have you gone through your bag of questions yet? Instead of asking so many questions, why don't you sprinkle a few posts (and threads) with your thoughts and opinions.
Regarding this question--You might take some time to read the archives. This issue has been kicked around a lot.
Is there a correct answer to your question? Yes, whatever translation you happen to be holding in your hands. God can speak to you in any translation.
But since we are in the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible (get ready Mexdeaf), it would be nice to join the celebration for the next six months.
After then, I am sure some publisher will be launching a "new and improved" version--to take your money.
The one that best reflects the meaning intended by the authors of the sacred texts!
version that allows us to read in English the "closest" in meaning to what the original intended and did say!
I'm celebrating like it's 1611- very puritan and all that.
Again, my brother- whose English? Yankee English, Southern English, British English...?
I'm not trying to facetious, but the answer is going to vary with the user. I'm partial to the ESV, someone else will say the KJV, someone else the NKJV, and so forth.
I just don't think there is just ONE and the ONLY answer.:smilewinkgrin:
You just proved that there is NO one English version that fits the bill of being "best/only" version...
In my opinion, NASV is "best" at portraying what was originally intended by God, BUT do find at times makes more sense to me to read same verses from the ESV or NIV!
Notice no KJV was listed here though....
ESV by far. The NASV had an agenda when it was written...and it shows.
I cannot go into the many, many reasons that I detest the NIV. It is most certainly not true to the Greek.
Just curious, what was the agenda behind NASV?
And i have read critics of the ESV saying its almost "worst" of both worlds...
Not as literally to Greek/Hebrew texts as NASV, and not as readable as a NIV!
I would also like to know what the agenda was behind the NASB. I've never heard that before.
This is occasionally repeated but never substantiated. People say the same thing about the ESV, NKJV, HCSB, et.al.
I don't know of a single scholar who doesn't believe that the NASB is the closest and most literal in terms of the original Grk/Heb. However, just because something is literal does not mean most accurate. The NASB was improved greatly with the update in 1995, but the ESV is a good step forward also. NET makes a great contribution as well.
isn't the 1977 Nasv considered to be more literal then the 1995 update?
is it true that the NET Bible doesn't really do a good job of translating the Bible in regarding the Christian view of the OT as being prophetic/pointing towards Jesus? translate it as essentially how a Jewish scholar, not a Christian scholar would see the OT? or was it more that they did not translate the OT quotes into NT texts as much?
"Detest" is a pretty strong word to use when describing your feeling toward Holy Scripture.
You level an unsubstantiated and baseless charge then scram.
Your remark is what most will find detestable.
You can't go into it -- figures.
You know,my American church is one of the most conservative and expostional churches around. The NIV has been used for decades here. Visiting preacher Stuart Olyott preached from it this past Sunday in his treatment of 12 Corinthians 15. I doubt you would have found fault with his message --even though he used the dreaded NIV as his text.
Well, I know Rippon would say the ESV :laugh: sorry, couldn't resist!
I would have to say the NASB. I read the ESV the most, but the NASB is going to be more literal, and hence a little more accurate.
What exactly was the agenda of the NASB?
I agree. :thumbs:
As TomVols said earlier --the more literal doesn't necessarily mean more accurate.
Should interlinear Bibles be discussed in this thread? Do any of you see interlinear Bibles (Hebrew-English OT or Greek-English NT) meeting some criteria for an "accurate/faithful English version"? I would like to hear some of your thoughts.