Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Nov 22, 2011.
As regards to literal/Dynamic versions of Bible?
I would place it in the hands of a charasmatic that would enjoy it more than I would.
Why would that be?
Isn't it regarded as being essentially in the same line of say the Niv?
Yes, and I'd place that one into hands of the charasmatics also
Do you see either of them as being the word of God in English to us today?
In a graph where an interlinear is at the extreme left and The Message is at the extreme right -- here's the turf area at which I would place it:
NJB -- REB -- CEB -- NLTse -- GW
By ill-informed folks,yes.
The NIV occupies the same territory as the HCSB,NAB,ISV and NET Bible. The NLTse is several more notches to the right of the NET Bible.
However, the NLTse is considerably closer to the NIV than the NCV,TEV and CEV.Those last three are much more on the right side of the scale.
Where would I put the NLT? The recycle bin.
Nah, J/K. I haven't read it, or maybe a scripture or two, so I do not know anything about it.
Would it be fair to say that current NIV/HCSB would be more in tradition of being "mediating" translation between "purely" literal versions exampled by NSV and "purely" Dynamic exampled by Message?
I simply do NOT trust the NLT. It's an ok read lying in bed with a soda on the nightstand next to you. I would also read it with a ballpoint pen handy to change the ridiculous gender-inclusive language and unwarranted plurals.
The HCSB is more literal than the 1984 NIV, and MUCH more literal than the NIV2011. It is termed 'Optimal Equivalence' by it's publisher.
Only by a smidgen.
You make it sound as if the 2011 NIV is an all-together different species than the HCSB. Whereas in reality. they are rather close.
And the ESV uses the term "essentially literal" for their version. So what?
Since the HCSB and the 2011 have so much in common with virtually the same translating philosophy when it comes down to it -- the 2011 NIV might as well use the same kind of terminology to describe their own translation.
Think many of us here on the BB posting on modern versions mistakenly think that IF anything other than a literal translation made in English, by definition MUST be worse/inferior...
Think that is why we should have and study from both say NASV/ESV/NKJV, along with either HCSB/NIV, as there are some passages where the more strictly literal ones make it awkward to follow!
In fairness, would you also make changes in the KJV where it has "unwarranted" non-literal renderings?