Rippon said:Well, Havensdad might not like the fact that Olyott's version of the NIV has at least 12 Corinthian epistles :thumbs:
Literal is not neccesarily most accurate. However, the NASB is indeed very literal and quite accurate.
What is The MOST Accurate/Faithful English Version Today?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by JesusFan, Jun 22, 2011.
Page 2 of 2
-
BobinKY:
I don't think Interlinears are "versions" as such. They are interlinears and have historically been viewed as in a different category. -
-
2. Not that I'm aware of. I don't think that's the purpose behind the work of Wallace, et.al. -
-
-
Think read a review of the NET Bible from a Bible Research web site, that had mentioned their problem was the translation had seen OT as not being "found: in the NT, that messianic verses that we would use not high lighted so much...
Still is a good Bible though....
Question, wouldn't the NKJV be considered essentially about the same "literalness" as the NASB, and another good study edition to use? -
Fair question.
1. NKJV still not as good due to the mss used
2. NASB is still more literal. That said, the NKJV can be more readable in places. -
Thank you for comment. I know you are right--most Bible readers do not use interlinears. However, I find them very useful, particularly when you want to get the literal text.
...Bob
Watch Clutch Cargo on youtube -
The most accurate & faithful translation is the one I use. :tongue3:
:laugh: -
WHICH text though is used?
Critical/majority/Texus Receptus?
Still have the problem with some perferring one text over the other!
Agree that an interlinear IS helpful to study with, its just that once again personal convictions will determine the results of use for biblical studies!
Watch Clutch Cargo on youtube[/QUOTE] -
-
I mainly use the NASB 95. But I also like the NET mainly for the notes, not so much the translation. And the Holman CSB has grown on me lately.
Page 2 of 2