How many translations?

There is a whole forum for translations. You may want to ask the mods to move this thread over there.

 

1. In this order of preference:

NASB
NLTse
HCSB

2. When you start reading Greek comfortably, you'll even find the NIV desirable.

 

Well , TH , I like : 1) TNIV 2) NLTse 3) HCSB 4) NET 5) NRSV 6) REB 7) MLB . When the ISV is complete it will rank rather high on my list .

I have to disagree with you about so-called word-for-word translations . The only ones coming the closest to that model would be the interlinears . Do you want a transcription , or a real translation ?

If by W-F-W you mean the more formally-equivalent models , okay then .

The HCSB does not really belong in that category . It is closer to the translation style of the TNIV and ISV -- which aim for that sweet spot between the more literal and the more functionally equivalent methods of translation .

I'm not sure where I would place the Amplified Version -- that's an odd bird .

The NIV ( and for that matter TNIV ) do not belong in the purely dynamic zone . They are essentially literal , even if they are not billed that way . The ESV does not have a lock on that method . Now the literary styles are quite different -- but the differences in substance is minimal .

The CEV may read like a paraphrase to many -- but it's dynamic , like the NCV .

The Message goes way beyond the dynamic range into the world of the unduly free . However , I do like a select number of renderings by E.P. who does know his Greek ( even if it doesn't evidence itself with The Message ) . BTW , he prefers the NRSV as his primary English translation .

BTW , docha' all think that the NKJ deserves an update sometime soon ?

 

Good stuff, Rippon! :thumbs: I like the NET too. I continue to be disappointed with the ESV---revisers could have done better.

 

I prefer formal equivalence as found in the KJVs, the NKJV and the NASBs. I shun dynamic equivalence as found in the NIV, etc. And I totally avoid paraphrases.

 

Revising the revised and reformed

Where do we get the authority to revise and reform The Word of God and The Church of God?

God needs no errata.

"When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away".

The armour is complete with the two-edged sword of the Lord, tempered with His blood. Woe be to those who would modify it. See Rev. 22: 18, 19.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

So I take it you read the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New in Greek? However, this thread is about translations.

 

The gent do have a point.

Ed

 

Double standard, Bro. James?

Everything you said is accurate and basically true. However, what is 'unsaid' but yet implied is false. Your 'argument' is basically the same as that of the Roman Catholic church, for a millennium and a half, as to the Vulgate. "Since we got "it", we need nothing else." I believe that to be akin to the argument of the church of the Laodecians, who said "I...have need of nothing..." (Rev 3:17) whereas God saw it differently.

David Lamb is accurate. The question is one of "translations". And the last time I checked, neither the OT nor the NT (or even the Apocrypha and/or any other extra-Biblical writings of those times, for that matter) were ever 'written' in English, Spanish, or Mandarin, the three most widely spoken languages in the world, none of which even existed in anywhere close to any modern form from the times of, say, 1500 B.C. through 200 A.D.

And God gave that perfect word' (and BTW, the written Word of God both was and is perfect and complete) in Hebrew, Chaldee/Aramaic, and koine Greek, none of which I read at all, only being able to struggle with the greatest difficulty through some of the Greek, at best. And I would suggest that the great majority of our fellow members of the body of Christ are not expert in the Biblical languages, either. Hence, most if not all, are needful for translators and translations into their own languages.

The real shame for the church, is that there are still many languages and dialects that have not "the very meanest translation" (continued below the quote)

"of the Bible" available to them, in their own language. I agree with the KJV translators here, and would expand that to include any other language, in addition to English, as well. The shame of the church in this remains.

Thank God for each and every translator from the first translator of the Hebrew Scriptures through today, including our own John of Japan, to name one BB member currently involved with translating the Scriptures into another language. May God bless your labors, John of Japan, and any others!

[Edited to add] FTR, I use and 'carry' the NKJV as my 'usual' English version, currently. I will cite any other that I have access to and I believe to be appropriate, when the circumstances call for it. Some, generally, I prefer over others, and prefer a "more formal version" to a "more 'dynamic' equivalent" version, as a rule.

Ed

 

Bro. James: Where do we get the authority to revise and reform The Word of God and The Church of God?

From Jesus' "Great Commission", where He sent His disciples out to THE WHOLE WORLD. How could they preach in other lands without an interpreter, or God's power enabling them to be heard in the languages of their audiences, such as God caused at the "first pentecost"?

God needs no errata.

And He has none. His word is now published in over 2400 languages.

"When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away".

Well, it aint here yet, sowe gotta continue with that which is imperfect. But it doesn't hurt to make it as perfect as man can make it.

The armour is complete with the two-edged sword of the Lord, tempered with His blood. Woe be to those who would modify it. See Rev. 22: 18, 19.

Woe to those who bring a sword to a gunfight.

 

Some pertinent definitions:

Revise: 1. to look over again in order to correct or improve. Brit.--revisit to study again--review. 2. to make a new, amended, improved or up-to-date version. Synonym: correct.

Reform: 1. to put or change into an improved form or condition. 2. to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults and abuses.

Translate: literally to carry across

Transcribe: to express in different terms especially words.

Perfect: complete, mature, adult, having the whole uniform.

Original English translation: "a virgin shall conceive..." Modern English translation: "a young woman shall conceive..."

Have we not revised the meaning of God's Word? Virgin and young woman do not have the same weight to teach the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. Who has the authority to revise the Word of God? It is still a valid question.

In the beginning was the Word, not the Church. The dye was cast long before the Holy See came on the scene.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The NIV is not the definitive dynamic-equivalent version . It's moderate in its use of functional equivalence . Do not go for the fringe when you choose to castigate the NIV as a pure D-E .

Now I do not think that D-E versions are unworthy . I appreciate the NLTse a lot , for example . I have said it before -- I think Martin Luther's Bible ( which he revised 5 times in his life ) was more along the lines of the NLTse method of translation than the NASB for instance . Luther's version was idiomatic -- in the vernacular of the people -- not in some exalted form . Someone has said that he was exceptionally free in his renderings .

As I went along the first 21 chapters of the NASB I found that the translators chose not to put the literal wording in the text much of the time . Instead , there are 229 occasions where footnotes note the literal rendering . So the NASB employs a good deal more dynamic equivalence than people normally suppose .

 

1. Most people who comment on the various translations need to do their research, frankly speaking.

2. Yes, you are quite right about the NASB. For example, at Luke 9:51, "He was determined to go to Jerusalm." The Greek has "He set His face toward Jerusalem," which is reflected in the ESV.

3. No translation that is meant to be read in public can be 100% word-for-word---not even the KJV is completely word-for-word.

 

What exactly is 'carried across' in an English translation of the Greek New Testament? Are the individual letters 'carried across'? Certainly not; written Greek characters are different than English characters. Therefore, the nearest substitution takes place. Occassionally, a transliteration occurs (but this method is incomplete translation, at best). Are the individual words 'carried across'? Again, no. The Greek vocabulary does not correspond to English precisely. So, the closest replacement is employed. Is the structure 'carried across'? Generally, no. Let's just stop here.

It seems to me that something is being left behind, and very often something else is being introduced. Perhaps it is similar to the reconstruction of a brick structure from one side of a creek to the opposite bank (with the bricks being 'carried across' as carefully as can possibly be done); still, some original mortar will crumble and fall away, and fresh mortar will be necessarily inserted to bind the bricks together again at the new location. If it is necessary, then it is worth the slight loss. If done properly, the structure will appear and function as it did originally (except under minute examination).

 

Good stuff, Franklin!

But here's the problem: Those who are committed to a position a priori would not appreciate such realistic comment.

 

Another 'Borne' Ultimatum

When Isaiah prophesied this to Ahaz (and others within earshot), were the prophet and the king actually expecting a sexually inexperienced girl to miraculously conceive in their lifetime? (a sign unto Ahaz occuring after he was dead would not be of much benefit)

If you think the affirmative then: It must come to pass, because we know that Isaiah is counted as a true prophet. By this interpretation, Jesus would be at least the second miraculous conception to occur.

Conversely, if you respond in the negative then: please explain why a clear and explicit miracle statement of fanastic proportions wouldn't cause anticipation, excitement, and celebratation in the hearers immediately at that time? (that doesn't seem to be the reaction)

Either way: Why would there be no record of this fatherless pregnancy in Isaiah or the whole OT?

To the best of my knowledge, the Hebrews were not expecting their messiah to be 'virgin-borne' then (nor are they now). I understand that they may have been spiritually blind, but I doubt they were so utterly semantically blind also.

 

The NLTse is the second edition of the NLT . It came out in 2004 . The NLT first appeared in 1996 . The follow-up revision was a considerable revamp which , while still in the functionally-equivalent camp , moves it several notches closer to the formally-equivalent versions .