PDA

View Full Version : KJV or NKJV



BadDog
Apr 17th 2006, 09:48 PM
OK, it's interesting that for the past 2 years the NKJV has led the nation in sales over even the NIV, yet invariably in polls such as the recent ones I started the NIV is tops and the KJV tops the NKJV as well.

So I'm going to have a new poll. Only ONE vote allowed. Vote for...

KJV
NKJV
NIV

Your favorite Bible. If you don't own any of these, and you could only use one of them... which one would you buy?

BD

Please... no KJVO stuff and no KJV or NIV bashing.

Slug1
Apr 17th 2006, 09:59 PM
NIV for me....................

TrustGzus
Apr 17th 2006, 11:07 PM
If I must choose only one, then NIV.

Matt14
Apr 18th 2006, 12:51 AM
You know my answer, BD. ;)

NKJV

Quickened
Apr 18th 2006, 01:04 AM
I started with a KJV when i got saved and by random chance when i bought myself a newer bible to use i ended up with NKJV.

Over time i have noticed that the NKJV speaks better to me but i do like to use both texts to compair during studies.

But NKJV gets my vote

jonny james
Apr 18th 2006, 01:05 AM
You know the answer BD. The King James Bible over the rest. Oops! Is that KJVO?:spin:

Jonny

BadDog
Apr 18th 2006, 12:57 PM
You know the answer BD. The King James Bible over the rest. Oops! Is that KJVO?:spin:

Jonny:P Not at all. You have to love your translation, else why are you using it?

BD

skc53
Apr 20th 2006, 01:39 PM
Ok, I have used KJV ever since I was a teenager, I had the Living Bible then, but switched back to KJV. What is the difference between KJV and the NKJV?:hmm:

BadDog
Apr 20th 2006, 02:56 PM
Ok, I have used KJV ever since I was a teenager, I had the Living Bible then, but switched back to KJV. What is the difference between KJV and the NKJV?:hmm: Go to Crosswalk.com or StudyLight.org and read it online. It's very similar. They got rid of the Thees/Thous/Yes etc. They also replaced the archaic words and words that end with est/eth.

Not much else changed besides that.

BD

ComeToLight
Apr 20th 2006, 09:45 PM
I enjoy the NIV and NKJV. When studying, I use the NKJV. If I could only have one, I guess it'd be the NKJV.

P.P.P.
Apr 20th 2006, 10:26 PM
I don't use any of those versions regularly, tho I do own them all. But, if I had to choose one of them, it would be New King James Version, without a doubt.

Alive-Indeed
Apr 20th 2006, 11:27 PM
I "grew up" on RSV, but I now read NASB. It clearly indicated when a different word is used instead of the literal translation and then puts the literal translation in the reference. It italicizes any words they add to help the flow (as such). It clearly shows what verses were found only in later manuscripts. These features help me in reading and studying it.

Two of my dearest friends read NKJV, so I find that several times a week a refer it, as we often delight over God's Word together. It's my 2nd choice for a translation, thus the one I voted for. : )

(I *really* miss the Thee's and Thou's my RSV had in the poetry books.)

BadDog
Apr 21st 2006, 01:59 PM
I don't "miss" those "thees" and "thous." But the NASB included them in the poetic books for just the sort of feelings you've expressed. That is also one reason why some still prefer the KJV.

BD

Ninna
Apr 21st 2006, 02:30 PM
I use KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, and Amplified but my favorite to use is NKJV.

skc53
Apr 21st 2006, 02:54 PM
[quote=BadDog]Go to Crosswalk.com or StudyLight.org and read it online. It's very similar. They got rid of the Thees/Thous/Yes etc. They also replaced the archaic words and words that end with est/eth.

Not much else changed besides that.

Thanks I will check that out.

Whispering Grace
Apr 21st 2006, 02:56 PM
I study various translations, but the NKJV is my favorite and the one I use when I am reading the Bible for pleasure.

skc53
Apr 21st 2006, 02:57 PM
I may just have to purchase a NKJV!! You guys have sold me on it.:pp

Alastair
Apr 21st 2006, 07:04 PM
NIV is easier to read, But based on the choice given I prefer KJV more. Trust it more you might say although can have difficulty understanding things at times:lol:

BadDog
Apr 22nd 2006, 05:15 AM
I may just have to purchase a NKJV!! You guys have sold me on it.:pp If you get one, I suggest that you look for the Nelson Study Bible - which is only in the NKJV. It came out in about 98 I think. Earl Radmacher is the editor - and it is the best study Bible on the market (IMO, of course). Great aids. Great notes.

BD

Nina91:9
Apr 22nd 2006, 06:26 AM
I have NKJV nelson's complete study bible-leather. I got it as a gift from my home church, at the time. I had attended that church from the third grade until I graduated, in '99. At the time it book price was seventy to eighty dollars- but I was the only senior so they spent the whole budget on my bible. They had my name engraved on it . My last name has worn off-hope it is a hint that maybe it is my turn to get married:rofl: :pray: :kiss: . When I got it it was heavy, but only about an two inches thick. Almost seven years later it measures Three and a half inches thick:o , pages torn, folded and tucked in nicely. That bible has been my baby! My mom got me a NIV :bible: for Christmas last year but, not to say anything bad about the bible, I don't care about it like I do my baby. I love the way it is worded, the study notes are extremely helpful to me, and well I guess that bible has seen me through the toughest times of my life. :cry: I use all of my bibles:P -Hope to get one of those four reference bibles w/o taking out a loan or sell one of my organs HA HA!:D Kinda sad that it just doesn't seem as if I will ever be able to get the same feelings over a bible, nothing can replace a true love for something. Don't get me wrong I know the word is what counts and is what I geet excited over but it is like priceless to me- a very sacred peice of my life. Sound weird? Nina91:9

BadDog
Apr 22nd 2006, 01:19 PM
Nina,

I know what you mean. When I first got involved with the Navigators, I had only used a KJV. They only put out their scripture memory verses in the KJV and the RSV. I decided to use the RSV, so I got a chapel Bible in RSV. No notes at all. My first RSV I saturated with notes throughout it. It was really hard to replace it - it was synthetic leather, and literally falling apart after about 5 years. I finally made the switch to a NASB study Bible... bgut it took nearly 20 years before I finally did so!

BD

P.P.P.
Apr 22nd 2006, 03:40 PM
The Bible that I used in Bible College was a NKJV. I wore it out! I have another NKJV Bible now, but it doesn't seem the same to me....I still have the old one, but don't use it, cause it's so fragile now. :saint:

Nina,
go to www.e-sword.net (http://www.e-sword.net)

You can "build" your own parallel Bible on your computer. I use it a lot and it's all free for the download. :spin:

BadDog
Apr 22nd 2006, 04:15 PM
Thanks, Sue.

BD

Nina91:9
Apr 22nd 2006, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the link. It is awesome to know that others hold a centimental value to their bible as an object. Mine is very precious to me like a member of my family!:D

Isaiah 41:10
Apr 24th 2006, 01:18 AM
I just bought a NKJV Schofield study bible yesterday, 1/2 off by the way. Looking forward to using it much!

BadDog
Apr 24th 2006, 01:49 AM
I just bought a NKJV Schofield study bible yesterday, 1/2 off by the way. Looking forward to using it much!Good notes. I got started on a Schofield KJV.

BD

DeadManWalking
Apr 24th 2006, 09:43 PM
Of the three choices, NKJV is my personal favorite. I used the NIV for over 10 years until one day I simply wanted something more literal. I've been "bible hopping" recently from a NAS, a ESV and my NKJV. I've finally landed on my Nelson NKJV Study Bible. The others are great for reference but I really enjoy reading the NKJV.

blueeyes
Apr 25th 2006, 12:55 AM
I love my KJV for the simple fact that I've been reading it so long that I'm more comfortable with it than any other version. :D But I don't mind doing a cross reference if I run across a passage that has me stumped...

BadDog
Apr 25th 2006, 01:31 AM
Of the three choices, NKJV is my personal favorite. I used the NIV for over 10 years until one day I simply wanted something more literal. I've been "bible hopping" recently from a NAS, a ESV and my NKJV. I've finally landed on my Nelson NKJV Study Bible. The others are great for reference but I really enjoy reading the NKJV.If that Nelson NKJV study Bible is the one edited by Earl Radmacher - you got your hands on the best study Bible on the market. Great notes. Sound theology.

BD

7Trumpets
Apr 25th 2006, 01:54 AM
The KJV and the NKJV are based on the Received Text (Textus Receptus)

The NIV and NASB and others are based on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Many scholars debate the authenticity of one or the other.

Ultimately, the KJV is most trusted for it is the Bible of the English speaking reformers; is not copyrighted and is not suspected of any hidden agenda.

The NKJV has too many footnotes to the versions on the other side which have tried to discredit the KJV (in order to gain acceptance and sales).

There are some important differences to the KJV and NKJV for those who strive at doctrinal purity. The NKJV makes reading easier and in that light it will be more popular.

In the end, I use these two. My church uses the KJV almost exclusively - 99.99% - (so we have corporate Scripture reading) so I am using the KJV more.

If I had to choose I would have to choose the KJV

BadDog
Apr 25th 2006, 03:48 AM
The KJV and the NKJV are based on the Received Text (Textus Receptus)

The NIV and NASB and others are based on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Many scholars debate the authenticity of one or the other.

Ultimately, the KJV is most trusted for it is the Bible of the English speaking reformers; is not copyrighted and is not suspected of any hidden agenda.

The NKJV has too many footnotes to the versions on the other side which have tried to discredit the KJV (in order to gain acceptance and sales).

There are some important differences to the KJV and NKJV for those who strive at doctrinal purity. The NKJV makes reading easier and in that light it will be more popular.

In the end, I use these two. My church uses the KJV almost exclusively - 99.99% - (so we have corporate Scripture reading) so I am using the KJV more.

If I had to choose I would have to choose the KJV
Though Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the two most valued MSS, textual critics consider any other MSS than just those two, though they are certainly given a priority, as you say.

I don't know that we can say that the KJV is not suspected of a hidden agenda. At the time of its release many felt that it was written so as to support many of the King's agendas - such as the Church of England.

If you are interested in what I posted regarding the textus receptus and the KJ only controversy, just look in other threads in the Bible chat forum.

BD

disiple56
Dec 24th 2006, 05:20 AM
I love my Zondervan NIV Study Bible. I have learned much from the study notes that I didn't find in other bibles. I also use my NIV and KJV bible software a lot.

Keemah
Dec 24th 2006, 03:16 PM
While the KJV is not perfect by any means, it is the most accurate of the English translations. I have an NKJV, but it just doesn't sit right with me, and I can't stand the NIV. The Amplified is the next best.

Frances
Dec 24th 2006, 07:12 PM
Ok, I have used KJV ever since I was a teenager, I had the Living Bible then, but switched back to KJV. What is the difference between KJV and the NKJV?:hmm:

I was raised on KJV too, but have prefered the NKJV for years now - it's almost the same but much more 'user friendly' and more understandable to non-Christians I want to share the Gospel with.

blbcHelvsme
Dec 25th 2006, 02:45 AM
I have a NKJV, but I also have a NIV and other versions(most on e-sword).

Cleo
Dec 29th 2006, 10:42 PM
I would get a NKJV, because I already have a KJV and a NIV bible. That way I will have one of each.:D

Marcat1702003
Dec 30th 2006, 01:04 AM
. When I got it it was heavy, but only about an two inches thick. Almost seven years later it measures Three and a half inches thick:o , pages torn, folded and tucked in nicely. Nina91:9

I voted KJV, but there is nothing like your favorite Bible. :hug:

hawg_427
Jan 1st 2007, 08:06 PM
I use my NASB first and my NKJV second. I had a read your Bible in a year NIV and that was useful for daaily reading.

punk
Jan 1st 2007, 08:34 PM
While the KJV is not perfect by any means, it is the most accurate of the English translations. I have an NKJV, but it just doesn't sit right with me, and I can't stand the NIV. The Amplified is the next best.

How do statements like this work?

I mean if you were really in a position to call the KJV the "most accurate", you'd probably just be reading the original Greek and Hebrew anyway and not using the KJV.

Anyway I voted NIV since it is the one I dislike the least from the provided list (giving this whole process for me the same feeling as a presidential election).

Sherrie
Jan 8th 2007, 01:16 PM
NKJV...Nelson Open Study Bible

skc53
Mar 5th 2007, 03:07 PM
I bought a NKJV and I love it. I use both, my KJV and my NKJV.

karenoka27
Mar 5th 2007, 03:09 PM
NIV when studying
NKJV when reading through the Bible in a year
KJV when memorizing Scripture

skc53
Mar 5th 2007, 03:21 PM
I like your avatar karenoka27!!!!!!!

karenoka27
Mar 5th 2007, 03:27 PM
I like your avatar karenoka27!!!!!!!

thank you;)..................

PeterJ
Mar 6th 2007, 03:42 PM
thank you;)..................

have u been there?

Sherrie
Mar 6th 2007, 04:53 PM
I do like my AMB "The Hebrew-Greek Study Bible" (KJV) as well.

TrustingFollower
Mar 6th 2007, 05:26 PM
I like the NIV. I am a simple man and the NIV is the easiest one for me to understand. The NIV is the first version I had when I was saved. My aunt gave me a NIV study Bible about 10 years before I was saved. Talk about taking a while for a seed to grow.

We have NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, and Holman Christian Standard Bible in our home. I will refer to most of them when I get into a deep study of a verse. I feel that each person should use the version that best fits them. It does no good to read the bible in a version that you do not understand just because someone else thinks it is a more accurate version. I feel that God has allowed all the different versions so everyone can understand his word.

PeterJ
Mar 9th 2007, 04:54 PM
NIV (New International Version)

Having much lesser votes what does that mean?

MyRock
Mar 20th 2007, 09:46 AM
NKJV on the whole for me

9Marksfan
Jul 18th 2007, 09:29 AM
NKJV on the whole for me

Well looks like the Brits have helped to clinch it so far for the NKJV! ;)

excubitor
Jul 18th 2007, 10:51 AM
Very interesting poll BD.

It shows that 80% of Christians are holding to a Textus Receptus based Bible which is very encouraging to me. It seems that more and more people are becoming disenchanted with the modern Critical Text based Bibles such as NIV.

I certainly greatly prefer the NKJV over the NIV or any other modern translation. For those who are particularly hard hearted against the KJV I always point them to the NKJV. However where the NKJV differs from the KJV then the KJV must have the greater authority. The NKJV makes too many compromises and unnecessarily favours words used in modern translations. It also lends weight to the Critical text and the F&H Majority text. It also uses an inferior modernised Hebrew text for the Old Testament instead of the tried, true and very ancient Ben Chayyim version.

Therefore by reason of excellence and perfection of accuracy I must recommend the KJV over the NKJV.
Good work BD for bringing this to our attention.

BadDog
Jul 19th 2007, 06:38 PM
:P

Well, in reality the NIV is the most popular today. I'm glad to see that the NKJV isn't doing so poorly.

Steve M
Jul 25th 2007, 12:26 PM
Recently I picked up a new study bible that parralels the KJV, Amplified, Revised, and American Standard.

I like it for study purposes, as it gives me a great plurality of opinions on the text. However, I still prefer to use my handy NKJV for scripture readings and sermons. It has the best mix of understandability and poetic language, IMO. That could be just because I've been using that particular Bible for more than 10 years now.

BadDog
Jul 25th 2007, 10:04 PM
Recently I picked up a new study bible that parralels the KJV, Amplified, Revised, and American Standard.

I like it for study purposes, as it gives me a great plurality of opinions on the text. However, I still prefer to use my handy NKJV for scripture readings and sermons. It has the best mix of understandability and poetic language, IMO. That could be just because I've been using that particular Bible for more than 10 years now.Nice. I assume that is the NASB, not the ASB-1901.

I find that there are so many websites today in which you can read in various translations. (Crosswalk, Studylight, etc.) I simply choose those I'm interested in, and use my Firefox or Netscape (can open tabs) browser tabs for each one. Hey, I'm a geek.

BD

Steve M
Jul 26th 2007, 12:19 PM
Nice. I assume that is the NASB, not the ASB-1901.

I find that there are so many websites today in which you can read in various translations. (Crosswalk, Studylight, etc.) I simply choose those I'm interested in, and use my Firefox or Netscape (can open tabs) browser tabs for each one. Hey, I'm a geek.

BD
I prefer downloading e-sword. (www.e-sword.net) It does all the tabbing work for me... and is also easier to navigate quickly.

When I'm on somebody else's computer, it's Crosswalk all the way.

BadDog
Jul 26th 2007, 03:16 PM
I prefer downloading e-sword. (www.e-sword.net) It does all the tabbing work for me... and is also easier to navigate quickly.

When I'm on somebody else's computer, it's Crosswalk all the way.
Yeah, that's a good product. Ilike to look up Robertson's Word Pictures on text, and that is available on both Crosswalk and StudyLight. He has some nice commentary regarding the Greek.

Thx,

BD

SweetCharity
Jul 28th 2007, 01:27 PM
KJV only here ;)


(ugh my message is too short to post again. making it longer!:giveup:)

BadDog
Aug 9th 2007, 03:27 AM
KJV only here ;)


(ugh my message is too short to post again. making it longer!:giveup:)
Great... as long as you don't put down all other translations, see some sort of conspiracy with modern translations, assume that the KJV in English is inspired and more accurate than the original autographs... etc. :P

Sometimes I just put a couple of smilies in there to get the char count up. I think that works.

Thx,

BD

anglican-cat
Sep 25th 2007, 06:33 PM
I don't "miss" those "thees" and "thous." But the NASB included them in the poetic books for just the sort of feelings you've expressed. That is also one reason why some still prefer the KJV.

BDThe 95 NASB dropped the Elizabethan form pronouns. Grace and Peace.:cool:

Matt14
Sep 25th 2007, 06:56 PM
Great... as long as you don't put down all other translations, see some sort of conspiracy with modern translations, assume that the KJV in English is inspired and more accurate than the original autographs... etc. :P

Sometimes I just put a couple of smilies in there to get the char count up. I think that works.

Thx,

BD

Like you've ever had problems with character counts in your posts! :rofl:

Howdy, BD!

BadDog
Sep 27th 2007, 02:32 PM
The 95 NASB dropped the Elizabethan form pronouns. Grace and Peace.:cool:Yes it did. But sometimes study Bibles still have the 1973 (date?) version. Mine does. (Purchased in about 2002.)

BadDog

anglican-cat
Sep 27th 2007, 03:57 PM
Yes it did. But sometimes study Bibles still have the 1973 (date?) version. Mine does. (Purchased in about 2002.)

BadDogI think the Thompson and the Open Study Bible used the older text format for a while......I think Thompson has quit.....you can still find the Open Study Bible with the 73' format but I have never seen it in a bookstore, just Amazon and other online book sites. Grace and Peace.:cool:

BadDog
Sep 28th 2007, 10:20 AM
I think the Thompson and the Open Study Bible used the older text format for a while......I think Thompson has quit.....you can still find the Open Study Bible with the 73' format but I have never seen it in a bookstore, just Amazon and other online book sites. Grace and Peace.:cool:Well, the 1995 is much better, IMO. The 1973 version is too wooden.

BD

Tonton
Sep 28th 2007, 02:06 PM
KJV is the most accurate translation from Texus Receptus (the credible manuscripts), while NKJV is also from those manuscripts, and more current language, but unfortunately some contamination with modern interpretations are included.

So I prefer KJV.

Anton

BadDog
Sep 29th 2007, 02:25 AM
KJV is the most accurate translation from Texus Receptus (the credible manuscripts), while NKJV is also from those manuscripts, and more current language, but unfortunately some contamination with modern interpretations are included.

So I prefer KJV.

AntonI do not agree. Where has the NKJV been "contaminated" by modern interpretations, unless by this you mean that very old translation principles should be followed even if in error? (The NKJV was not influenced by the Alexandrian text.)

BD

grptinHisHand
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:22 PM
I grew up with the KJV so a lot of my Scripture memory is from that. But for studying now I like NKJV and have been memorizing some from it. I also read online at blueletterbible.org and compare other translations as well.
Good poll.
g

Reynolds357
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:34 PM
OK, it's interesting that for the past 2 years the NKJV has led the nation in sales over even the NIV, yet invariably in polls such as the recent ones I started the NIV is tops and the KJV tops the NKJV as well.

So I'm going to have a new poll. Only ONE vote allowed. Vote for...

KJV
NKJV
NIV

Your favorite Bible. If you don't own any of these, and you could only use one of them... which one would you buy?

BD

Please... no KJVO stuff and no KJV or NIV bashing.

If I had to choose one and only one, it would be the authorized version of the KJV. NKJV would run a close second. NIV would be down the list somwhere near the bottom.

holyrokker
Aug 4th 2008, 04:43 AM
I prefer the ESV (English Standard Version)

breeze47138
Apr 7th 2009, 11:36 PM
just to read I use the Geneva, but to study I use a parallel (would chose the NKJV over the KJV)

Emanate
Apr 8th 2009, 11:14 PM
KJV. Good enough for Paul, good enough for me.

I prefer the language of the KJV. Keep in mind, my senior theme was on King Lear. What can I say?

Izdaari
Apr 13th 2009, 10:51 AM
:P Not at all. You have to love your translation, else why are you using it?

BD
Aye, but none of those are translations that I love. I ruled out the KJV as too archaic and obscure in its language, and the NIV as too dynamic equivalent for a sole bible. I went with the NKJV as the least objectionable of the three. It's essentially literal and reads pretty well, though I'd prefer a CT base. I would choose (in order) the ESV, HCSB, NASB ('95 update) and NRSV over any of those three. And when I want a dynamic equivalent translation, I'd choose the TNIV and possibly the NLT2 over the NIV.

Prufrock
Apr 26th 2009, 07:39 AM
I read, use, and believe the King James Bible. My enthusiasm for the New King James is on a par with my appreciation of the latest songs by Eminem or Snoop Doggy Dogg.

Izdaari
Apr 26th 2009, 12:13 PM
I read, use, and believe the King James Bible. My enthusiasm for the New King James is on a par with my appreciation of the latest songs by Eminem or Snoop Doggy Dogg.
And of course you are a huge Eminem and Snoop Dogg fan? :rofl:

Prufrock
Apr 26th 2009, 02:52 PM
And of course you are a huge Eminem and Snoop Dogg fan? :rofl:
Indeed, sister. Those who know me best often refer to me as Rap Master P-Rock......

In point of fact, I have more patience for Snoop Dogg than for the NKJV, althogh Eminem is a different story. I would put Eminem on the same level as "The Message" or "The New Living Translation." But I would not cast aspersions on anyone's favorite version; I was simply answering the question.

Prufrock be funky.

:cool:

JesusMySavior
Apr 28th 2009, 05:17 AM
KJV for my personal reading and study; but I generally use the NKJV for Bible studies. It never fails and it bridges the gap between those who are using "other" translations, and the KJV, which I prefer (I won't say anything else).

I have an NIV but I never use it. Considering giving it away or something. I won't say anything else on that one :lol:

-SEEKING-
May 16th 2009, 11:27 PM
And when I want a dynamic equivalent translation, I'd choose the TNIV and possibly the NLT2 over the NIV.


What exactly doesa dynamic equivalent mean?

Oh, I voted for NIV because I don't really enjoy the other 2. But I read ESV the most now. Although yesterday I picked up a HCSB. Very good as well.

JWayne
May 17th 2009, 12:27 AM
I prefer the NKJV.

Prufrock
May 17th 2009, 01:13 AM
What exactly does a dynamic equivalent mean?

"Dynamic equivalence" is the method used by translators who are trying to show what the Bible means, rather than what it actually says.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Izdaari
May 17th 2009, 10:43 AM
What exactly doesa dynamic equivalent mean?

Oh, I voted for NIV because I don't really enjoy the other 2. But I read ESV the most now. Although yesterday I picked up a HCSB. Very good as well.
ESV and HCSB are my two favorites. :pp

There are basically two ways to translate:

Formal equivalence: You try to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, as much as can be done in another language, consistent with acceptable readability in the new language. If you do it purely this way, you get something like the NASB.

Dynamic equivalence: You try to convey the original thoughts as accurately as possible without worrying too much about whether the exact words match. The most popular of these are the NIV and the NLT.

And of course it's possible to mix the two approaches. The HCSB is a good mixture, leaning toward formal equivalence, but achieving almost perfect (IMO of course) English readability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equivalence

-SEEKING-
May 18th 2009, 01:16 AM
ESV and HCSB are my two favorites. :pp

There are basically two ways to translate:

Formal equivalence: You try to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, as much as can be done in another language, consistent with acceptable readability in the new language. If you do it purely this way, you get something like the NASB.

Dynamic equivalence: You try to convey the original thoughts as accurately as possible without worrying too much about whether the exact words match. The most popular of these are the NIV and the NLT.

And of course it's possible to mix the two approaches. The HCSB is a good mixture, leaning toward formal equivalence, but achieving almost perfect (IMO of course) English readability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equivalence

Thank you. Now I feel bad for not picking up an NLT the other day. Oh well. There's always tomorrow. :pp

Izdaari
May 18th 2009, 03:53 AM
Thank you. Now I feel bad for not picking up an NLT the other day. Oh well. There's always tomorrow. :pp
I think an NLT (2nd edition) is a very good translation to have in one's library. It's one of my favorites for casual reading, while still being an actual translation rather than a paraphrase like The Message or the Living Bible.

(I like paraphrases too, but I don't consider them real bibles -- just somebody telling bible stories in their own words. That's a good thing, if it's by a good storyteller, but it's not the same thing.)

For study, I like to use formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent translations together, so that each can cover the others weaknesses. My favorite pair for that is ESV and TNIV (basically the same as NIV, but updated, incorporating later scholarship). Part of the reason for that particular pairing is the excellent study bibles I have in each: the ESV Study Bible and the Zondervan TNIV Study Bible.

BadDog
May 19th 2009, 05:21 PM
"Dynamic equivalence" is the method used by translators who are trying to show what the Bible means, rather than what it actually says.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.Thx.

Actually DE is often referred to by translators as "meaning based," so that works. Of course if that's what something "means," it is what it "says." :D But I understand your gist - those focusing on formal equivalency (FE) emphasize the words and phrases, sometimes missing the actual meaning, and those focusing on the meaning can read their own thoughts into it, and hence miss what it actually "says."

That other end of the spectrum (and no translation is completely at one end or the other) referred to as "formal equivalent" is also often referred to as "word-for-word literal." That tends to give a wrong impression that FE translation is more accurate than DE translation. Not necessarily. What is really meant is that the forms are emphasized over the meaning. Now both types of translation philosophy consider form and meaning as well as context and many other considerations.

But by "formal equivalent" it is meant that the translators try to follow the same word order and sentence structure... the form is the focus, even though that structure applies to a specific language (source language) only and not to English (the target language). What tends to happen when this is followed too closely is that the reading becomes wooden, the meaning is confused, and often is unclear. We end up with sentences which would never be spoken in English... any age of English, and some wrong assumptions are sometimes made.

IOW Hebrew or Greek sentence structure is followed for English. The intent is to be more "literal," and there is certainly an importance in being consistent in how we translate. But translation is not simply translating the first meaning for words as found in a lexicon in the order given in the source language. One has to consider the overall context, paragraph structure that the sentence is within, and the range of meaning of all the words. They also have to consider the nuances of tense.

Sometimes with a more DE style of translation, translation of a word or phrase is done differently even within the same paragraph or chapter. Now words do have a field of meaning, of course. But we need to be consistent in how we handle them, especially idioms, for example.

Even the KJV was fairly DE at times. For example, Mh GENEITO (essentially "may it never be") is translated by the KJV as "God forbid." I don't like it simply because QEOS ("God") is not there, and I don't like the presumption that readers will make that we are asking God to intervene. But the KJV translators were attempting to capture the impact of the original expression in Koine Greek, and it is an emphatic one. That is often something else that DE translations aim at--impact. They want to have the same impact on today's readers, in English, as the original words had on the NT readers at the time, in Greek or Hebrew.

Another example is that in Greek a double negative is emphatic, while it is simply improper English to say "I'm not never going to do that." So some adjustments need to be made to the "forms." The question to ask in this example is how do we modify the strict meaning of the words so as to capture the intended meaning and impact? No translation is strictly word-for-word literal or even comes that close.

But my personal preference is a translation philosophy that strives to be consistent in how words and phrases are handled, while considering context and various possibilities for the verb tenses, prepositions, nouns and adjectives, etc.. The RSV had a philosophy: "As literal as possible, as free as necessary."

Sounds like a good way to go to me. Let's not be unnecessarily free in how we translate simply for effect. Here's an example. I use two FE (NASB, KJV) and two somewhat DE translations (NIV, NLT):

Romans 1:16 (NASB) For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Romans 1:16 (KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
("Of Christ" is a difference due to different Greek manuscripts followed.)

OK. it's hard to get past the "eth"s and "unto," but as can be seen, aside from some archaic words not used anymore (too bad concerning "unto" - it's a useful preposition), they read almost the same.


Romans 1:16 (NIV) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Romans 1:16 (NLT) For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes – Jews first and also Gentiles.

The NLT has translated the Greek εὐαγγέλιον ("gospel") more literally as ""good news." The FE translations elected to keep the transliterated "gospel" because it has become a part of our language over the centuries--tradition--rather than due to some accuracy concern. The NLT also added "at work" though no such Greek words are present. They're focusing on meaning and impact.

The NIV is a mildly DE translation. It translated the Greek "to everyone who believes" (παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι) as "for everyone... IMO that is perhaps more of a result of it having a mildly Reformed bias since the translation was initiated by the RCA. That was followed in the next phrases, "first for the Jew..." It is dative case, so "to everyone" would be more likely than "for everyone" which begs the genitive case.

But they may have done that simply because "for everyone who believes" is more likely what we would say in English than "to everyone who believes." What does the latter mean anyway?

Sorry about the rambling. But I think there are some misconceptions regarding translation philosophies that I wanted to comment upon.

BD

BadDog
May 19th 2009, 05:25 PM
ESV and HCSB are my two favorites. :pp

BD: Izdaari, it is interesting that the ESV (RSV) and HCSB have essentially the same translation philosophy - as literal as possible, as free as necessary. The HCSB calls it "optimal equivalency" in its preface.

There are basically two ways to translate:

Formal equivalence: You try to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, as much as can be done in another language, consistent with acceptable readability in the new language. If you do it purely this way, you get something like the NASB.

Dynamic equivalence: You try to convey the original thoughts as accurately as possible without worrying too much about whether the exact words match. The most popular of these are the NIV and the NLT.

And of course it's possible to mix the two approaches. The HCSB is a good mixture, leaning toward formal equivalence, but achieving almost perfect (IMO of course) English readability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equivalence
Izdaari,

OK, you put in just a few sentences what it took a few paragraphs for me to express! I like how you put it here. The link was excellent too. People put down Wikipedia, but it is a nice resource, IMO:


WIKIPEDIA
Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. The dynamic (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc.), while formal attempts to render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural expression in the target language). The two approaches represent emphasis, respectively, on readability and on literal fidelity to the source text. There is, however, in reality no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches.[1]

The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence" are associated with the translator Eugene Nida, and were originally coined to describe ways of translating the Bible, but the two approaches are applicable to any translation.
(emphasis added)

I've got one of Nida's books. He's the accepted guru of Bible translation.

BD

BadDog
May 19th 2009, 05:37 PM
I think an NLT (2nd edition) is a very good translation to have in one's library. It's one of my favorites for casual reading, while still being an actual translation rather than a paraphrase like The Message or the Living Bible.

(I like paraphrases too, but I don't consider them real bibles -- just somebody telling bible stories in their own words. That's a good thing, if it's by a good storyteller, but it's not the same thing.)

For study, I like to use formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent translations together, so that each can cover the others weaknesses. My favorite pair for that is ESV and TNIV (basically the same as NIV, but updated, incorporating later scholarship). Part of the reason for that particular pairing is the excellent study bibles I have in each: the ESV Study Bible and the Zondervan TNIV Study Bible.

Good to emphasize the NLT 2nd edition, as some stores are still trying to sell their 1st edition Bibles, and the 2nd edition made some important changes - it's much more accurate!

Now I like the ESV (started memorizing scripture with the RSV, and the ESV is a mild revision). I also like the TNIV - I prefer it over the NIV. The gender inclusive stuff is much overblown! (I don't agree with all their revisions there, but probably about 2/3rd.) The TNIV is a bit more accurate (more FE) than the NIV, and they've corrected a few errors.

But I find the TNIV (or NIV) and the ESV to be pretty close to the same in terms of DE. I suppose the ESV is a bit more FE, but not much. And remember that both the RSV and the HCSB stated in their prefaces that they were striving for balance between readability and literalness. BTW, ever tried the NRSV? It reads very nicely. I would put the NIV up into the balance between DE and FE category, though more to the DE end and move the ESV and RSV to the top of that same category - toward the FE end. The NRSV belongs in the DE category. Something like this:

FE:
ASV-1901
NASB
KJV
NKJV

OE: (Optimal Equivalent)
WEB
RSV
ESV
HCSB
God's Word
NRSV
TNIV
NIV

DE:
NLT
Good News Bible (TEV)
CEV
NCV
NIrV

Paraphrases:
The Message
The Cotton Patch Bible
The Living Bible


Just my thoughts on it. I do consider the NASB to be more FE than the KJV - if you consider the languages that they were translated into (source language).

The HCSB is probably a little more FE than the NIV - I like it. It also has some conservative gender-inclusive changes, though not enough for my taste. Ever try it?

How about the NET? It's only available online (www.bible.org). It's probably about the same level of DE as the NIV or NRSV.

BD

-SEEKING-
May 19th 2009, 05:40 PM
I think an NLT (2nd edition) is a very good translation to have in one's library. It's one of my favorites for casual reading, while still being an actual translation rather than a paraphrase like The Message or the Living Bible.

I just picked one up yesterday. Yes it is wonderful for casual reading. Brought it with me to work. Turns out I need a fresh dose of God's word today.

Izdaari
May 19th 2009, 10:23 PM
Good to emphasize the NLT 2nd edition, as some stores are still trying to sell their 1st edition Bibles, and the 2nd edition made some important changes - it's much more accurate!

Now I like the ESV (started memorizing scripture with the RSV, and the ESV is a mild revision). I also like the TNIV - I prefer it over the NIV. The gender inclusive stuff is much overblown! (I don't agree with all their revisions there, but probably about 2/3rd.) The TNIV is a bit more accurate (more FE) than the NIV, and they've corrected a few errors.

But I find the TNIV (or NIV) and the ESV to be pretty close to the same in terms of DE. I suppose the ESV is a bit more FE, but not much. And remember that both the RSV and the HCSB stated in their prefaces that they were striving for balance between readability and literalness. BTW, ever tried the NRSV? It reads very nicely. I would put the NIV up into the balance between DE and FE category, though more to the DE end and move the ESV and RSV to the top of that same category - toward the FE end. The NRSV belongs in the DE category. Something like this:

FE:
ASV-1901
NASB
KJV
NKJV

OE: (Optimal Equivalent)
WEB
RSV
ESV
HCSB
God's Word
NRSV
TNIV
NIV

DE:
NLT
Good News Bible (TEV)
CEV
NCV
NIrV

Paraphrases:
The Message
The Cotton Patch Bible
The Living Bible


Just my thoughts on it. I do consider the NASB to be more FE than the KJV - if you consider the languages that they were translated into (source language).

The HCSB is probably a little more FE than the NIV - I like it. It also has some conservative gender-inclusive changes, though not enough for my taste. Ever try it?

How about the NET? It's only available online (www.bible.org (http://www.bible.org)). It's probably about the same level of DE as the NIV or NRSV.

BD
You rate the ESV as more DE than I thought. My understanding was more like this:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a141/Izdaari/arrow_pic.jpg

Not that it makes that much difference to me. It's just interesting.

Yes, I've tried the HCSB. I own a few copies of it, one being the Holman Illustrated Study Bible and another being the Apologetics Study Bible. I have a couple compact large print editions too, very handy for backpack or purse.

My biggest reasons for preferring the ESV over the HCSB isn't the translation, but the published editions.

1) The ESV Study Bible (IMO the best general purpose study bible), and

2) premium leather editions by Cambridge and R.L. Allan exist in ESV but not HCSB. (I've recently acquired a Cambridge ESV Pitt Minion in brown goatskin, and I love it! An Allan ESV1 is on my list.)

I do like the OE philosophy, so I guess it's no surprise that my two favorites are in that category. :cool:

And yes, I like the NRSV too, though I'm not extremely familiar with it yet. I only have one copy of that, a paperback Access Bible, which seems sort of like a student edition of the Oxford Annotated Bible. It doesn't say that, though it is by Oxford.

The NET is one I use a lot (mainly for the extensive translator's notes). I've seen a hardcopy edition in my local Christian bookstore, but I didn't buy it. But I have a downloaded copy sitting on my desktop. I use the ISV online some too.

Another DE you didn't mention that I've become fond of is the NAB, which is a Catholic translation. I have that in two paperback editions, one fairly small and handy, the other being the Catholic Study Bible.

In your list above, I changed to bright blue all the ones I own at least one physical copy of. My one Cotton Patch isn't even a full NT, but just Paul's Epistles. Clarence Jordan does seem to have a good handle on Paul. I hope to own a LOLCat Bible someday, if they ever print it. ;)

Dani H
May 20th 2009, 12:40 AM
NKJV hands down.

Although one of my favorite Bibles is the Picture Bible. I'm not even kidding. They had it in comic booklet/magazine format when I was a teenager and I loved it when I read it back in the days. I was very happy when I found the whole actual Bible of it a few years bck and promptly bought one for my son, who enjoyed it a lot too. Not for study, obviously, but pretty neat.

Edit: Picture Bible, not Comic Book Bible. My bad. But it reads like a comic, so there you go. :)

-SEEKING-
May 20th 2009, 12:41 AM
NKJV hands down.

Although one of my favorite Bibles is the Comic Book Bible. I'm not even kidding. They had it in comic booklet/magazine format when I was a teenager and I loved it when I read it back in the days. I was very happy when I found the whole actual Bible of it a few years bck and promptly bought one for my son, who enjoyed it a lot too. Not for study, obviously, but pretty neat.

WOW! I think I'm gonna see if I can get one for my son. Do you get it online or in a book store?

Izdaari
May 20th 2009, 02:58 AM
WOW! I think I'm gonna see if I can get one for my son. Do you get it online or in a book store?Probably online, I don't think too many book stores would carry it. I found it at Amazon, but they don't allow commercial links here. :dunno:

Here's the ISBN-13 number: 978-1577481430

-SEEKING-
May 20th 2009, 03:40 AM
Probably online, I don't think too many book stores would carry it. I found it at Amazon, but they don't allow commercial links here. :dunno:

Here's the ISBN-13 number: 978-1577481430

Sadly it appears that it only comes in..............................
Dare I say.............
KJV
My son's only 7. And not from England. :cool:

Dani H
May 20th 2009, 03:55 AM
WOW! I think I'm gonna see if I can get one for my son. Do you get it online or in a book store? Google "The Picture Bible" (Iva Hoth is the author). Great stuff. :)

BadDog
May 20th 2009, 11:30 AM
You rate the ESV as more DE than I thought. My understanding was more like this:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a141/Izdaari/arrow_pic.jpg

Not that it makes that much difference to me. It's just interesting.

Yes, I've tried the HCSB. I own a few copies of it, one being the Holman Illustrated Study Bible and another being the Apologetics Study Bible. I have a couple compact large print editions too, very handy for backpack or purse.

My biggest reasons for preferring the ESV over the HCSB isn't the translation, but the published editions.

1) The ESV Study Bible (IMO the best general purpose study bible), and

2) premium leather editions by Cambridge and R.L. Allan exist in ESV but not HCSB. (I've recently acquired a Cambridge ESV Pitt Minion in brown goatskin, and I love it! An Allan ESV1 is on my list.)

I do like the OE philosophy, so I guess it's no surprise that my two favorites are in that category. :cool:

And yes, I like the NRSV too, though I'm not extremely familiar with it yet. I only have one copy of that, a paperback Access Bible, which seems sort of like a student edition of the Oxford Annotated Bible. It doesn't say that, though it is by Oxford.

The NET is one I use a lot (mainly for the extensive translator's notes). I've seen a hardcopy edition in my local Christian bookstore, but I didn't buy it. But I have a downloaded copy sitting on my desktop. I use the ISV online some too.

Another DE you didn't mention that I've become fond of is the NAB, which is a Catholic translation. I have that in two paperback editions, one fairly small and handy, the other being the Catholic Study Bible.

In your list above, I changed to bright blue all the ones I own at least one physical copy of. My one Cotton Patch isn't even a full NT, but just Paul's Epistles. Clarence Jordan does seem to have a good handle on Paul. I hope to own a LOLCat Bible someday, if they ever print it. ;)


Izdaari,

LOLCat? Never heard of it. Gotta tell me about it. And I have to get a copy of that Apologetic's Bible - heard many good things about it, but haven't looked it over too closely. BTW, your preference - how you see it - didn't come through. I'm interested.

Well, the ESV is such a mild revision of the RSV that if you own the ESV, you own the RSV. And I have a couple of paper editions of the WEB only because I was involved in the revision of the ASV-1901 a few years ago into the WEB by Michael Paul Johnson. He sent me a copy, and I ordered another copy at the time. He's involved in Bible translation in the Philippines now, and I don't think you can get hard copies of it anymore. It is unique in that it is a majority text translation and it was done without copyright, as with the NET, so that people can quote it fully at no cost. Incidentally, that was the key impetus for the NET.

Now the CEV is good to have on hand, and the New International Reader's Version is a nice children's Bible - perhaps the best. The NIrV "translators" took a published list of 800 words (by educators) which were selected for 3rd or 4th grade readers and added a couple hundred spiritual and other terms from the Bible to reach a list of 1000 common words. They also kept all of their sentences very short. Makes for a very readable Bible! I recommend it for any church young children's program.

The CEV is also a good children's Bible. I believe that it was originally written for those for whom English is a second language, and it is also geared for 4th grade reading. (IMO the NIrV reads much better and is geared at a much lower level than the CEV... the CEV is for adults-for whom English is a 2nd language-but it has become a popular children's Bible.) The CEV was developed by Barclay Newman. They did away with all Bible jargon and religious terms, which is not necessarily a good thing. "Justification," "sanctification," etc. - yeah, confusing for children. "Baptize" - we need it. It is not the most accurate Bible, but neither is the NIrV of course. Barclay worked closely with Eugene Nida. The CEV is very paraphrastic, and the NIrV doesn't look anything like the NIV. Personally, when I read it I can't help but wonder how closely they even looked at the NIV in this essential paraphrase.

BTW, it is easy to get the CEV and nIrV in Bible bookstores as they are the top translations used for children's Bibles.

Take care,

BD

-SEEKING-
May 20th 2009, 05:12 PM
Google "The Picture Bible" (Iva Hoth is the author). Great stuff. :)

Thank you so much for the info. Would you happen to know what version it's in? None of the links give this info.

Dani H
May 20th 2009, 11:35 PM
Thank you so much for the info. Would you happen to know what version it's in? None of the links give this info.

Well, since it's mostly just speech bubbles and general narratives to fill in the blanks ... I don't think it's any authorized version like an actual, textual Bible would be. It has some shortcomings as to accuracy so just FYI. I wouldn't regard it as any more than an introduction as to the main stories and characters in Scripture for young readers (and older ones, just for kicks), and I wouldn't use it for studies. It's really just a story "Bible", so if you keep it at that level you'll be fine. :)

TrustGzus
May 21st 2009, 03:31 AM
Well, the ESV is such a mild revision of the RSV that if you own the ESV, you own the RSV.That's pretty accurate. I have several Ray Stedman messages on MP3. He used the RSV. I can follow along very easily with an ESV. I'd say it's less than 5% different.

Anje
May 21st 2009, 04:39 AM
definitely NKJV

Izdaari
May 21st 2009, 09:10 AM
Izdaari,

LOLCat? Never heard of it. Gotta tell me about it. And I have to get a copy of that Apologetic's Bible - heard many good things about it, but haven't looked it over too closely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCat_Bible_Translation_Project

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

(mods note: the above are not commercial links)

Here's John 3:16-20 in LOLCat:

16 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#16) So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, k?'17 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#17) Cuz teh Ceiling Kitteh not snd hiz son 2 take all yur cookies, but so u cud maek moar cookies 4EVAR!18 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#18) U beleevz him u getz cheezburgrs, but els you get invisibul error.19 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#19) Lytes ar on now heer, but catzes no caer cuz they can see wit no lyte anyway.20 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#20) Invisibul error no liek lyte, him no liek be seed.21 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#21) Good kitteh no skeered of lyte, cuz himz not messin up."


BTW, your preference - how you see it - didn't come through. I'm interested.You mean the graphic that shows the relative position of the ESV on the literalness scale? Hmm. It shows for me. It's an image I stored on photobucket. But you can also find it on the front page of EvangelicalBibles.com, which is where I got it.

BadDog
May 21st 2009, 11:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCat_Bible_Translation_Project

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

(mods note: the above are not commercial links)

Here's John 3:16-20 in LOLCat:

16 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#16) So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, k?'17 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#17) Cuz teh Ceiling Kitteh not snd hiz son 2 take all yur cookies, but so u cud maek moar cookies 4EVAR!18 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#18) U beleevz him u getz cheezburgrs, but els you get invisibul error.19 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#19) Lytes ar on now heer, but catzes no caer cuz they can see wit no lyte anyway.20 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#20) Invisibul error no liek lyte, him no liek be seed.21 (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=John_3#21) Good kitteh no skeered of lyte, cuz himz not messin up."

You mean the graphic that shows the relative position of the ESV on the literalness scale? Hmm. It shows for me. It's an image I stored on photobucket. But you can also find it on the front page of EvangelicalBibles.com, which is where I got it.
Thx... hmmm, not my cup of tea. But I notice that you're familiar with the Cotton Patch Bible. Those Bibles are aimed at what is referred to as impact - trying to bring about the same impact in today's readers as happened in the NT readers.

So, where do they place the ESV on the literalness scale? Also, we should keep in mind that the ESV was revised by some conservative evangelicals. They probably want it to appear as more FE. The original translators of the RSV referred to it as essentially a literal translation, because they were concerned about how it would be accepted, of course. But IMO it was more middle of the road... read their preface. IMO the original RSV preface should be required to also be in the ESV... don't know that it is.

In An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament (The International Council of Religious Education, 1946), pp.56-57, the following quote was made, which is where I guess the translation philosophy I referred to before came from:

"The maxim ‘As literal as possible, as free as necessary’ was followed."

The NRSV also claims to be essentially literal:

"As a consequence, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) remains essentially a literal translation. Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language — the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun."
Here they explain their gender inclusive language.

Anyway, that's subjective and opinionated stuff. But I always felt that the NIV was not that more free than the RSV. I think the NIV felt more free to change around the word and phrase order, but how they handled the actual words themselves is very similar.

I think that jpg is being blocked at work... have to try it at home.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
May 21st 2009, 02:37 PM
Here's how I see Bible translations philosophies, in general:

FE (Formal Equivalent): "As literal as possible"
Follow forms even when a bit confusing - meaning word order and phrase order followed of source language. Only with complete ambiguity is change made.

OE (Optimal Equivalent): "As literal as possible, as free as necessary."
Read as "As FE as possible, as DE as necessary."
Word order and phrase order followed when it makes sense in English. A more literal approach followed when it makes sense to do so. But when it is unclear or confusing, a more "paraphrastic" (DE) approach is followed.

DE (Dynamic Equivalent or "Functional Equivalent" - I don't use the latter for confusion over "FE." Also usually called Meaning Based by those who practice DE translation.): "As Free as necessary"
Here a FE approach is followed only when clear and reads well. The focus here is on the meaning. Same words and phrases should still be translated consistently. Impact is often a strong focus here, resulting in more paraphrastic (free) translation.

Paraphrastic: The public would refer to it as a paraphrase, and this indicates not strictly a translation. Technically, however, "paraphrase" means going from English to English, as Taylor did with The Living Bible. Peterson knew both Greek and Hebrew well, and used the original languages in his "translation." However, since he referred to it as a paraphrase, IMO it is a paraphrase. The NavPress publishers call it a translation. Paraphrastic means free translation, and is the right word here.


The OE terminology was penned by the HCSB translation team. IMO by definition it is a middle-of-the-road kind of philosophy. Since the RSV and HCSB changed the phrase and word order more often than did say the NASB, KJV, NKJV or the ASV-1901, IMO they are middle-of-the-road. My main concern with FE translations is not how they handle the word meanings or verbals, for they usually do well here, but loss of accuracy due to following phrase and word order of the source language too strongly. It makes them too wooden. They don't sound like proper English for they aren't.

In Greek (and Hebrew) word order does not affect translation, except for emphasis.

Anyway, regardless how we define the terms, the point is that some Bible translation philosophies have focused on the forms at the loss of some accuracy of meaning while others have focused on meaning and impact at the loss of some consistency and accuracy of meanings of individual words.

IMO there is a view in the general evangelical populace that FE means "word-for-word" and is more literal. While there is some truth to this, in general, more form-based does not necessarily mean more accurate. I like those translations which strive to find a nice balance.

When we talk about accuracy, we tend to mean that our target language translation reflects accurately what the source language meant. But there is also accuracy of understanding by the reader. IOW, if someone reads the translation and misunderstands what is being said, then that is not accuracy. Ambiguity contributes to loss of accuracy. To deal with this at times we must translate more freely... to gain accuracy. So IMO, in general, OE style translations are actually more accurate than FE style translations... since they are understood more accurately when read, which is what translation is all about, isn't it?

I also think that there is a place in our libraries for each of the above.

Thoughts?

BD