PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
Rant coming...
As I've studied the translation issue, and read my own copies, it has become obvious that the dynamic and paraphrase Bibles (NLT, CEB, CEV, The "Massage" and Living Bibles) have grown to confuse "readability" with "how we speak today." They've used things like contractions and slang words more and more, and insist "we need to have a readable Bible" alongside of "having a Bible that speaks like we do."
But really, what great literature, news, or even instruction manuals are written how we speak? These folks complain about the NASB, NKJV, ESV and others "not sounding how people talk" (the Better Bibles Blog is notorious with this). However, these people don't insist that Time and Newsweek (which by the way still use "man" for "humankind" [eesh!]) "update" their language. You don't hear them push for the dumbing down of great literature (e.g. Shakespeare), good journalism, and textbooks because they don't "talk like the modern person does." Interesting how they insist the timeless Word of God be changed to become quickly dated.
The KJV (and its contemporaries) were written to be understandable to the "average Joe", but were NOT how this fellow speaks. I think this is why the KJV has such an enduring legacy. The language is "different" from what the average person says, and is longer lasting.
I am all for updating God's Word with the language, and note that the minimal revisions of the NASB and ESV (and almost total lack of revision of the NKJV) is notable in that these translations have a stronger hold on the use of the average Christian and church, despite the language being somewhat more elevated, or at least precise (these are also more accurate to the original text, btw.).
I say yes, update the language to make it readable to the guy on the street, but there's no reason why it should sound like said example.
As I've studied the translation issue, and read my own copies, it has become obvious that the dynamic and paraphrase Bibles (NLT, CEB, CEV, The "Massage" and Living Bibles) have grown to confuse "readability" with "how we speak today." They've used things like contractions and slang words more and more, and insist "we need to have a readable Bible" alongside of "having a Bible that speaks like we do."
But really, what great literature, news, or even instruction manuals are written how we speak? These folks complain about the NASB, NKJV, ESV and others "not sounding how people talk" (the Better Bibles Blog is notorious with this). However, these people don't insist that Time and Newsweek (which by the way still use "man" for "humankind" [eesh!]) "update" their language. You don't hear them push for the dumbing down of great literature (e.g. Shakespeare), good journalism, and textbooks because they don't "talk like the modern person does." Interesting how they insist the timeless Word of God be changed to become quickly dated.
The KJV (and its contemporaries) were written to be understandable to the "average Joe", but were NOT how this fellow speaks. I think this is why the KJV has such an enduring legacy. The language is "different" from what the average person says, and is longer lasting.
I am all for updating God's Word with the language, and note that the minimal revisions of the NASB and ESV (and almost total lack of revision of the NKJV) is notable in that these translations have a stronger hold on the use of the average Christian and church, despite the language being somewhat more elevated, or at least precise (these are also more accurate to the original text, btw.).
I say yes, update the language to make it readable to the guy on the street, but there's no reason why it should sound like said example.