What are your thoughts regarding the Lockman Foundation?

Here is a bit of information

The New American Standard Bible

 

One of the verses cited to demonstrate a less literal translation was Isaiah 1:4, with the NASB "they have turned away from Him, whereas the ASV1901 has "they are estranged and gone backward." Both versions miss some of the message, they are estranged and they have turned their backs on Him. The NASB is missing estranged, and the ASV1901 does not explain what was meant by "gone backward."

And of course the NASB falls short of rendering the same word or phrases meanings consistently (concordantly.)

 

Shortcomings are often subjective.

 

It's shortcomings are the same as any other literal translation, you can't get exactly Greek/Hebrew into English so translation choices are made. This is true for any translation (including KJV). If there are alternate readings though the ESV is usually faithful to list them in footnotes.

The reason I said subjective is because the KJVO crowd will undoubtedly chime in saying it uses corrupt manuscripts etc etc etc....

 

The short comings of any English version are that they misrepresent the message of God. Some translation choices are better than others, and some are much worse in that they alter the message of the text. Here are some whoppers from the ESV. Revelation 13:8 says names were not written ( and by inference other names were written) in the Lamb's book of life from (or since or after) the foundation of the world. If you make it say the opposite (names not written before the foundation) to match doctrinal presumption, that is a true "short coming."

At James 2:5, and with many other versions, between "poor to the world" and "rich in faith" they insert "to be." But they do not put the addition in "italics" to allow the reader to see the insertion is not in the inspired text. The insertion here alters the message, they were chosen when they were rich in faith, and the altered message is they were not rich in faith, but were to be made rich in faith in the future. So once again we have the message reversed along the lines of Calvinist doctrine.

I could go on but my meaning of short comings hopefully is clear.

 

While it is common for versions to claim formal equivalence to some degree, if the translation does not use italics to identify words added for clarification, such as the NET, they are functional equivalence versions. So, we have the KJV, NKJV, and WEB based on the TR and MT, and the NASB, and LEB based on the CT, and of course Interlinears as the most closely aligned with formal equivalence.

 

There are a number of issues. I am not going to make a list.

Romans 10:10, ". . . for with the heart a person believes, *resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, *resulting in salvation. . . ."

*footnote: Literally: to righteousness
*footnote: Literally: to salvation

 

Of course that isn't true Van. That's not the definition of formal equivalence.

 

Taint so adds nothing but personal incredulity to the mix. Show me a version that has so many modifications to the text they cannot use italics and I will show you functional equivalence.

 

First of all, there is no such thing as a word for word translation that makes any sense. Second, the use of italics is a choice by some of the formal equivalent translations but that is not the definition of a formal equivalent. Third, Formal equivalent means you are trying to get as close to a word for word as possible. Functional or Dynamic is thought for thought. Italics are not the barometer for functional vs. formal and it is ridiculous to even assert that.

 

Apparently you have never looked at a bible comparison chart, I think the KJV, NKJV, WEB, NASB and LEB make sense.

Who said the use of italics was the "definition" of formal equivalence? Please provide the quote.

I think formal equivalence has been misconstrued by those wanting to paraphrase the text, to disparage the best translation philosophy.

 

You did.

Emphasis added.

 

So if brown eggs are chicken eggs, the definition of chicken eggs is brown eggs. Twaddle.

But I think it is a fair assessment to say a sine qua non of formal equivalence versions is the use of italics (or other means of earmarking) to identify additions by the translators.

 

Van you flat out said that if a translation does not use italics it is functional not formal equivalent. You can't weasel out of this one.

 

It is not what I said but how you misconstrued it.

While it is common for versions to claim formal equivalence to some degree, if the translation does not use italics to identify words added for clarification, such as the NET, they are functional equivalence versions.

Which versions that do not use italics are formal equivalence versions?
No answer will be forthcoming.

 

Ok, explain what you did mean then....