which tends the support the accepted truth that among translation, the Nasb is "most literal" then the Esv then the Niv!
NOT saying which is best, just that is how thiose would list in a chart for "literalness"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which Bible Translation Should I use?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
which tends the support the accepted truth that among translation, the Nasb is "most literal" then the Esv then the Niv!
NOT saying which is best, just that is how thiose would list in a chart for "literalness"
which tends the support the accepted truth that among translation, the Nasb is "most literal" then the Esv then the Niv!
NOT saying which is best, just that is how thiose would list in a chart for "literalness"
The NASBU still has to reconstruct the form almost as much as the ESV does. There is no strictly "literal" translation. Interlinears don't count.
But,as I have said repeatedly,just because something is rendered more literally doesn't mean it is being more accurate or faithful to the original than other less "literal" translations.
The NASBU still has to reconstruct the form almost as much as the ESV does. There is no strictly "literal" translation. Interlinears don't count.
But,as I have said repeatedly,just because something is rendered more literally doesn't mean it is being more accurate or faithful to the original than other less "literal" translations.
but does mean that if we wnat to try to follow along say the Greek text while studying, the formal version is closer to that sentence structure and better to use, right?
but does mean that if we wnat to try to follow along say the Greek text while studying, the formal version is closer to that sentence structure and better to use, right?
Yes,a more formal version would be easier to follow along. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be better to use. Contextual meanings in a translation that leans more toward the functional-type would be ideal sometimes to arrive at a meaning;not a lexicon-type so-called literal version.
In translation it is very easy to literally translate the meaning right out the text. All translation involves interpretation.
But the more formal versions tend to do that less then th more DE ones, correct?
No, actually I think a dynamic translation like the NIV does of better job of striking the right balance between literal/formal and understandability.
that would perhaps be true for using "just " the English text, but why is it that those who also study the greek texts seem to imply the KJV/NKJV/Nasb superior to use for 'serious studies?"
First off no one I know of who does serious bible study uses the KJV or NKJV.
The NASB is fine though seems to find itself getting in it's own way at times.
Serious scholarly work is done from Greek and Hebrew texts, not English translations.
i understand, but is there a reason why in Greek the preferred versions to use along with the greek texts are such as nasb/ and even the 1901 ASV, which reads almost like an interlinear at times?
The header is the name of a new book I just bought. It has chapters by leading advocates of the NLT,HCSB and NIV as well as the ESV. It is edited by Andreas J. Kostenberger and David A. Croteau.
Douglas J.Moo,who heads up that translation team has some things to say on the gender issue.
"Our decisions about gender were part and parcel of our single overall agenda --to put God's Word accurately into modern English. No other agenda informed our gender decisions. In every case our procedure was a simple and straightforward one: (1) decide whether the original text was inclusive (men and women included)or exclusive (men only or women only); (2) decide on the English words that would clearly communicate that meaning." (p.85)
Douglas J.Moo,who heads up that translation team has some things to say on the gender issue.
"Our decisions about gender were part and parcel of our single overall agenda --to put God's Word accurately into modern English. No other agenda informed our gender decisions. In every case our procedure was a simple and straightforward one: (1) decide whether the original text was inclusive (men and women included)or exclusive (men only or women only); (2) decide on the English words that would clearly communicate that meaning." (p.85)
Why is it though that the 2005 Niv revision, which the 2011 besically adopted to main extent, DID have an agenda bias, so to speak on the translation process?
WHICH commitment won out in the end result/finished product?
From the book and Doug Moo's section:"The NIV...seeks to translate into 'natural'modern English. To be more specific,we want to use English that will be widely understood by people in Africa and India as well as people in North America,by believers and unbelievers,by people with Ph.D.s and those with only a high school education." (p.86)
"'These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from some personal experience;they are based on solid data...the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.[the largest data bank of English usage in the world;more than 4.4 billion words]Our decisions were driven by this research,and our concern was always fidelity to what the original texts were saying. When those texts indicate an exclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term;where they indicated an inclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (87,88)
"'These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from some personal experience;they are based on solid data...the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.[the largest data bank of English usage in the world;more than 4.4 billion words]Our decisions were driven by this research,and our concern was always fidelity to what the original texts were saying. When those texts indicate an exclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term;where they indicated an inclusive reference,we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (87,88)
You've made up your mind, facts and information aren't going to matter. You're wrong on this whole agenda issue. Moo is as credible as it gets, worked on ESV and NIV yet you refuse to believe what he says.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Moo has much more integrity then the flamethrowers on the pro-ESV/anti-NIV side.
(One thing though;Moo was on the NLT N.T. team. I don't think he was ever part of the ESV one though.)
Why is it though that the 2005 Niv revision, which the 2011 besically [sic]adopted to main extent, DID have an agenda bias, so to speak on the translation process?
It did not. And Doug Moo headed up that translation as well as the current one.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Moo has much more integrity then the flamethrowers on the pro-ESV/anti-NIV side.
(One thing though;Moo was on the NLT N.T. team. I don't think he was ever part of the ESV one though.)
Thanks for the correction.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Moo has much more integrity then the flamethrowers on the pro-ESV/anti-NIV side.
(One thing though;Moo was on the NLT N.T. team. I don't think he was ever part of the ESV one though.)
Just curious as to why its flamethrowers to be people just pointing out that MANY conservative christians had issues with the 2011 revision...
Any wonder why they went to Esv in droves, or else stayed with 1984 niv?