Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That makes sense to my unlearned mind.David, in my opinion, the far more important question is the translation philosophy and concomitant possible biases of the translators. Far more harm can come from that than from even the widest differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. All you have to do is look at how a translation translates Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 7:14, and Romans 9:5 to see if there is a liberal bias.
That makes sense to my unlearned mind.
If I may ask a follow up question, why is there such disagreement among Christians about the best translation philosophy? Is it simply because we have different value assigned to literalness and readability?
There is also the issue of which sources to be used themselves, as some would see God only giving to us to use one specific Greek text to be used for translation, while others like me would see that really good translations can be made from any of the main primary Greek texts.Yes, and there are also different awareness levels concerning the tradeoffs of the two. Most people recognize that there has to be a certain amount of give and take with translation, and that it is not an exact science. One word in the source language does not always equal one word in the target language. Communication, after all, comes from people, and people are complicated.
Also, there are differences in status among Christians that exhibit quite a lot of factors. Some people may value clarity more, others may value transparency to the original more. Pastors may value something differently than the parishioners.
A lot has to do with what we expect the Bible to be, and how we expect that Bible to communicate to us.
Yes, and there are also different awareness levels concerning the tradeoffs of the two. Most people recognize that there has to be a certain amount of give and take with translation, and that it is not an exact science. One word in the source language does not always equal one word in the target language. Communication, after all, comes from people, and people are complicated.
Also, there are differences in status among Christians that exhibit quite a lot of factors. Some people may value clarity more, others may value transparency to the original more. Pastors may value something differently than the parishioners.
A lot has to do with what we expect the Bible to be, and how we expect that Bible to communicate to us.
Both would be considered as formal translations, but the Nas would be more literal as to trying to get as much word for word equivalence as was possible.Back to Eph 1:9; in your opinion is "purpose" a legitimate translation of the word, or should there be mention of kindness or goodness as well?
I'm still searching for my preferred translation. I like parts of both the NASB77 and the ESV, but can't decide.
I understand that, but where I am having difficulty is deciding where to land. Hence wanting to mix the two together to have my favourite aspects of each. But that's not going to happen.Both would be considered as formal translations, but the Nas would be more literal as to trying to get as much word for word equivalence as was possible.
I got my threads mixed up. This isn't the Eph 1:9 thread.Back to Eph 1:9; in your opinion is "purpose" a legitimate translation of the word, or should there be mention of kindness or goodness as well?
I'm still searching for my preferred translation. I like parts of both the NASB77 and the ESV, but can't decide.
I got my threads mixed up. This isn't the Eph 1:9 thread.
I got my threads mixed up. This isn't the Eph 1:9 thread.
When looking to decide on which would be an acceptable bible translation to use?
Those likemyself who favor the Critical text would see God indeed had preserved His word to us in all of the manuscripts and documents, its just that need to make sure to attempt to reconstruct the originals as close as possible by deciding on which were the most likely renderings in the original books of the Bible.As one who has read mainly ASV early and ESV in years past, I have found the KJV suits me better now a days. I have found many times when I do not understand proper English, as used in the KJV, I refer to the NIV or ESV now a days to clear things up. What tipped me over the edge to use the KJV was the belief that God preserved His word, and any changes offered by the CT in my opinion changes intent, because of a critical (small c) attitude toward God not preserving The Word.
My opinion would be that the 2 English versions closest to what was actually originally penned down to us would be the Nas and the NKJV..I understand that, but where I am having difficulty is deciding where to land. Hence wanting to mix the two together to have my favourite aspects of each. But that's not going to happen.
Interesting.Oddly, Fee recommended:
The NRSV is perhaps the most reliable of the formal equivalent versions and is well respected among biblical scholars. The NASB, NASU is the most consistently literal and so provides the most direct access to the form and structure of the Hebrew and Greek. The ESV is an improvement over the RSV, especially in light of its greater use of gender accurate language.
Fee, Gordon D.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions
The Nsrv would also be guilty of going into Inclusive language renderings big time, in the same way that the 2011 Niv did.Oddly, Fee recommended:
The NRSV is perhaps the most reliable of the formal equivalent versions and is well respected among biblical scholars. The NASB, NASU is the most consistently literal and so provides the most direct access to the form and structure of the Hebrew and Greek. The ESV is an improvement over the RSV, especially in light of its greater use of gender accurate language.
Fee, Gordon D.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions
Heh.Interesting.
Patrick, when are you going to start your own custom Bible publisher so that I can make requests?
This is actually a tricky question and the answer is "it depends".
How one approaches the subject of textual criticism from the standpoint of one's epistemological and teleological considerations, has some rather dramatic ramifications down the road, regardless of the actual final product that is produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament).
The very same concerns come into play in regards to how one handles the approach to translation..though the product produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament) IS immediately relevant to the new reader.
Therefore, from a practical standpoint, I'd say for the beginning Bible reader, the approach to translation is far more important than the textual issue.
However, the textual issue IS going to eventually bite the one who continues to study the Bible. It is simply inevitable these days.
Personally, when giving a new believer or a searcher a Bible, I ask them how much they read. If they are a reader, I gift them a KJV (TBS Westminster with archaic words defined in the margins, or a Reformation Heritage KJV study bible...I'm more and more preferring the later). If they are not a reader, I gift them a NKJV (Nelson's new Deluxe Readers Bible).
I think the clearest example of which is the dominant factor is that both the Nas and the Niv used the same source texts, but is there really any doubt that the Nas as the formal translation did a better job in getting the accurate translation for us into the English?This is actually a tricky question and the answer is "it depends".
How one approaches the subject of textual criticism from the standpoint of one's epistemological and teleological considerations, has some rather dramatic ramifications down the road, regardless of the actual final product that is produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament).
The very same concerns come into play in regards to how one handles the approach to translation..though the product produced (i.e. particular edition of the Greek New Testament) IS immediately relevant to the new reader.
Therefore, from a practical standpoint, I'd say for the beginning Bible reader, the approach to translation is far more important than the textual issue.
However, the textual issue IS going to eventually bite the one who continues to study the Bible. It is simply inevitable these days.
Personally, when giving a new believer or a searcher a Bible, I ask them how much they read. If they are a reader, I gift them a KJV (TBS Westminster with archaic words defined in the margins, or a Reformation Heritage KJV study bible...I'm more and more preferring the later). If they are not a reader, I gift them a NKJV (Nelson's new Deluxe Readers Bible).
Care to expand upon the bolded statement, please?
Some seem to feel that we need to have a perfect English translation though in order to have the real word of God to us, but only the Originals were complete without any errors or mistakes in them.I mean the new reader will read any Bible oblivious to the issue of textual criticism but in the course of their study will have to address it.
Those who carefully think through the implications will realize the subject is a corollary to the veracity of the doctrines of inspiration and preservation...especially if they are engaged in the subject by their unbelieving college professors.
Personally, I find contemporary textual criticism to be an infinite regress, ever searching, but never quite finding the original readings. I don't see anything like this in the Bible's own self-witness.
For various reasons, I advocate the TR and find the sort of advocacy I promote is a strong defense against the polemics of unbelieving critics as well as reflects a Biblical paradigm on the subject and nature of the text of Scripture. Therefore I encourage translations of it.
Finally, and sadly, most people when addressing this subject today, are strongly biased towards accepting the position behind whatever translation they are already using. I wish that were not so, but alas it is. Therefore, I wish to nudge their bias in the direction of the correct text.
The KJV is in Early Modern English, not Old English. The proper term for a modern Bible is not "modern English" but "contemporary English".
Understood, thanks. We will agree to disagree.I mean the new reader will read any Bible oblivious to the issue of textual criticism but in the course of their study will have to address it.
Those who carefully think through the implications will realize the subject is a corollary to the veracity of the doctrines of inspiration and preservation...especially if they are engaged in the subject by their unbelieving college professors.
Personally, I find contemporary textual criticism to be an infinite regress, ever searching, but never quite finding the original readings. I don't see anything like this in the Bible's own self-witness.
For various reasons, I advocate the TR and find the sort of advocacy I promote is a strong defense against the polemics of unbelieving critics as well as reflects a Biblical paradigm on the subject and nature of the text of Scripture. Therefore I encourage translations of it.
Finally, and sadly, most people when addressing this subject today, are strongly biased towards accepting the position behind whatever translation they are already using. I wish that were not so, but alas it is. Therefore, I wish to nudge their bias in the direction of the correct text.
Solid advise, as I use the Nlt to do the first time reading, and then go into using either the Esv/Nas for more serious studying of the scriptures.Anyone who is interested in this topic would do well to check out D.A. Carson's 'The Inclusive Language Debate' , particularly chapter 3, ' Translation and Treason: An Inevitable and Impossible Task.' Used copies are cheap, and the read is well worth it. Personally I read multiple English translations, from the AV to the Net Bible. Checking one against the other.
What translation do you prefer to use?Understood, thanks. We will agree to disagree.