Which Translation and Why?

[Gold Dragon]

Very true, I agree with you 100%. I think in my post I emphasized the guidance of the Holy Spirit, maybe a bit too much. As you noted it is extremely beneficial to understand the original text. My point was more that if you nit pick over single words here and there, you kinda miss the point as well. And I feel that you can abuse the scriptures just as badly that way. By not looking at the overall context and themes, individual words will not make any sense. Hence the reason why I believe that it really isn't all important over which translation you read.

Unfortunately whether you feel guided by the Holy Spirit or not, you always bring your own ideas into the text and believe what you feel is true. It is the nature of us humans.

Some great points and I agree totally!

 

[Crazy Liz]

I thank the Salvation Army for giving away Bibles for free at some of their locations

Hey Crazy Liz, you are in seminary right?

Yup. That's right.

 

[ksen]

I don't think translations are that important. I believe in the word of God and that the Holy Spirit will guide me while reading his word. I tend not to nitpick over individual words and rather try get a good feel of the themes, emotions and important concepts that are being told through the stories, parables and history. Any translation is going to be off from the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, simply because the English language is not able to translate it correctly. For example there are various different synonyms for the word Love in Hebrew, so all those words are just translated into love when you go from Hebrew to English. So if you want to understand word for word and make sure that "the" doesn't actually mean "a" (stupid example I know) then it would probably be better to learn hebrew, and greek and read the original text.

It's what the Holy Spirit guides you to understand through his word rather then each individual word themselves.

How do you get these "themes, emotions, and important concepts" without individual words?

The words are extremely important if you want to get the correct "themes, emotions, and concepts" that the Holy Spirit intended to impart.

 

[ksen]

In principle i prefer formal equivalence because I like the opportunity to figure out the what the author is trying to say rather than reading the interpretation according to the scholars. For this reason I find the KJV less useful because it was (as I understand it) a dynamic equivalence in its day.

Thanks for your thoughts Stefan.

You are very welcome to post in here in whatever fashion you want if you are a Baptist. The Baptist icon is not mandatory, as you can see from my own.

On to your point above, the KJV was not translated using dynamic equivalency. It is a formal equivalence translation. That said, the translators did have to use some dynamic equivalence because of the difficulty of getting some of the language to translate into english word for word.

I like what the KJV does. It puts the words that are not explicitly in the text in italics so we can see what the translators added for ourselves.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I like what the KJV does. It puts the words that are not explicitly in the text in italics so we can see what the translators added for ourselves.

The NASB is another formal equivalence that does this.

 

[ksen]

The NASB is another formal equivalence that does this.

I didn't know that. It seems to me like that device helps to keep the translators "honest." I'll have to check out the NASB. Do you know which Greek Text it uses?

 

[Gold Dragon]

I didn't know that. It seems to me like that device helps to keep the translators "honest." I'll have to check out the NASB. Do you know which Greek Text it uses?

It isn't the TR so you probably wouldn't be interested in it.

The original 1971 edition was based on Nestle's 23rd Greek Edition for the NT.

The 1995 edition that is more common today is based on Nestle-Aland's 26th edition from the UBS (United Bible Society) .

The OT for the 1995 edition is based on both the MT and DSS. Considering the recent discovery of the DSS (discovered in 1947 but results published gradually between 1950-95), I would assume the 1971 edition did not use the DSS as a source for comparison.

Bible Researcher - New American Standard Bible

The publication of the New American Standard Bible began with the Gospel of John in 1960, followed by the four Gospels in 1962, the New Testament in 1963, and the entire Bible in 1971. The Greek edition used by the NASB revisers was the 23rd edition of the Nestle text.

Bible Researcher - NASB > Preface

HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

...

GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.

 

[ksen]

It isn't the TR so you probably wouldn't be interested in it.

You're right, I wouldn't be interested in using it as my everyday Bible. It still may be useful for help in understanding some of the more difficult passages in the KJV though.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You're right, I wouldn't be interested in using it as my everyday Bible. It still may be useful for help in understanding some of the more difficult passages in the KJV though.

The NKJV is probably more helpful in that regard than the NASB since it is based on the TR.

This link does a good job of comparing the NASB to the NKJV.

Bible Researcher : New King James Version

 

[woman.at.the.well]

NIV for sure! It is the easiest to read and to my knowledge very accurate. I am currently trying to read the Amplified and honestly find it to be too wordy and therefore confusing at times. I think I'd just rather read the bible without all the extra "stuff" in it.

Does anyone else feel that way about the Amplified? I don't NOT like it. I guess I'm just having trouble getting use to it.

 

[Richard]

I'd go with NIV , since it is one of the most understandable for the young

 

[ZiSunka]

I've recently ordered the Nelson Study Bible in NKJV and the Life Application Study Bible in NLT. I'm going to have to choose between these two and send one back, but may keep both. Any thoughts on these two books?

God Bless

They are both great. You should keep them both and use them. If you can't afford both, just give up something else less valuable, like cable TV or fast food until you have enough money for both.