Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Oct 24, 2013.
What valid reasons would one superior to the others?
Spelling and grammar are important in order to be taken seriously.
Are we picking just between those three? I don't know much about the HSBC at all (other than it's a bank around here - LOL) so between the NIV and ESV, I'd go with the ESV.
IMHO, I prefer (of the three) the ESV. While I own a HCSB I don’t understand the reasoning behind the translation (it almost seems like they just wanted a translation and made one and is very inconsistent). That said, I don’t think it a “bad” translation.
I like the NIV and it is more accurate than a “word for word” translation in some places (sometimes a phrase carries the original meaning better than word for word). But for the most part I like word for word translations. All translations are also interpretations to a degree, and of the three mentioned I believe the NIV offers more interpretation.
NASB is probably my favorite (partly because it was used in the church when I was a pre-teen and I grew into it) but that wasn’t a choice.
noted, and corrected!
I am a Nasp, but do use and like the Esv/Hcsb also!
Would say Esv to me reads much like an updated Kjv, while tjhe HCSB to me reads like a more literal Niv....
What valid reasons would one be superior to the others.
The only thing that I can think of is if one conveys or comes the closest to conveying the original intent of the authors through translation...or perhaps doesn't force an interpretation that is not explicitly warranted.
ALL versions of the bible require the translators to make 'eduvcated guesses" at times of what the original actually said, as we have at times corrupted or incomplete manuscripts to base work off from, butisn't there less interpreting what was ment and said from a literal as against a thought by thought transaltion though?
I think so, but sometimes "literal" does not mean "word for word." There are examples (and I can't think of any off hand) where the NIV is actually closer to the meaning because it seeks to convey the thought rather than actual word in English. But for the most part I prefer word for word translations. There is still interpretation involved, but I believe less interpretation than the thought for thought.
Would agree that in some areas those like the HCSB and Niv are actually easier to read and undderstand wha the Lord conveyed in the original manuscripts, but think that for overall serious studies, better to choose a literal version, and use others for back up!
One famous area would be here, in 1 Cor 7:36
If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
New Living Translation
But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancee improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.
English Standard Version
If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.
New American Standard Bible
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.
King James Bible
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
But if any man thinks he is acting improperly toward his virgin, if she is past marriageable age, and so it must be, he can do what he wants. He is not sinning; they can get married.
“7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his unmarried daughter, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. 7:37 But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep his daughter unmarried, does well. 7:38 So then the one who gives his daughter in marriage does well, but the one who does not give her does better.”
Thus the HCSB and NASB agree with the above interpretive translation.
So if the Dad thinks it is wrong to prevent the marriage, let the marriage occur, but if the Dad thinks the marriage is wrong, even though his daughter's age is past the peak of attractiveness, he should not allow her to marry a scoundrel.
If I have to pick just from those three, the HCSB. It is every bit as literal, though with modern English (including contractions), as the NASB. As I've said before, the ESV makes some translation decisions on occasion that don't accurately deliver to the reader the nuance of meaning behind the word or phrase. I find that disconcerting.
Overall, however, I prefer the NASB.
I am a Nasp also, but do like both Esv and HCSB...
Does the HCSB read like a more literal version of the Niv to you?
I guess my gripe with the HCSB is that I do not understand some of the choices they made. For example, they replace “blessed” with “happy” to make it understandable to the contemporary audience. But they also replace “Praise the LORD” with “Hallelujah.” I am not sure that I like some changes (but perhaps it is only preference on my part) like changing “fishers of men” to “follow me and I will make you fish for people!” But I don’t really think the HCSB a “bad” translation – but perhaps a needless one. I question the reason for the translation. But I don't think that the HCSB is dynamic equivalence (like the NIV).
I prefer the ESV for a formal translation into relatively modern English.
I enjoy the Holman (have a copy at the clinic for study there) as a little more readable.
Lowest is the more dynamic NIV since it often loses some of the key words/meanings in an attempt to put God's message in our idiom. But that said, I still enjoy it for uplifting reading
I remember some time back you said something about the NKJV as being weak in some area. I use it at church and the NIV to study at times. Would you please refresh my memory about the weakness of the NKJV?
think that based upon the theory of translation held by the translation team, is a very strong study edition, as its only 'fault" to me is relying upon same textual sources as the Kjv had!
I like the NKJV but feel its weakness is the same as the KJV - it uses a limited (and skewed) Greek text blend compared to what is available today. The NKJV went overboard to use (as best as possible) the EXACT Greek text.
Of course, the KJVonly deny this, but that doesn't change fact. Biggest problem is the translators of the AV1611 used their own blend of Greek and that blended text was lost in a fire. So there was some "guesswork" by the NKJV translation team on what the 1600's bunch actually used.
I have 5500 texts and fragments. Contrast that to 6 that were used by Erasmus in the first Greek compilation. I feel that the Byzantine copies of copies of copies is the weakest 'family' of Greek texts today with obvious conflation of the text over the centuries.
Other than using inferior Greek base, the NKJV is excellent. I have it and my MacArthur Study Bible uses it.
(Let's keep the argument for best Greek text for another thread!!) :thumbsup:
We really like the ESV. I've also looked some at the NLT but the ESV is our text here.
Some in the church think we should make one version our 'official text' for services and are leaning towards the ESV. They see that the KJV is more of a difficult read personally, so we feel that getting them to read an ESV may help them to see things more clearly. We are considering doing this. Reading the NASB and ESV has been a blessing to me and to others who were long time KJV.
We will not attack the KJV or talk of faults in the text. It isn't necessary to do so.