I ask your forgiveness for the tardiness of this response. This is response to those who were gracious enough to comment on the last posting of this blog. It would probably make a better in depth study later to give sufficient answer to what the measurement of a good bible version. However, I best can say it the shortness of this passage to say the answer is not found in comparing version for version for differences in of themselves as to which is best.
First, no one bible translation is or can ever claim inspiration, nor even special preservation. I love and have preached from the KJV for over 28 years, and still do today. However, there is no superiority of the KJV to other more recent bible translations. The biggest mistake in assuming translation comparison is the difference in word or phrase usage between translation to translation.
The real measurement is found in the copied manuscripts from the originals. The translations that are closest to these manuscripts are what determine the relevance. If a word translated in previous generations no longer equal the same definition of original then a new translation is more needful.
Secondly, it needs to mentioned that the use or purpose of a translation is also a factor in choosing. There are more than one way to translate from one language to another. There is a word for word method (called Formal Equivalence). This takes word exactly from one language to the other without any change. This sounds ideal, but it is not without weakness. If you formally translate "your pulling my leg" into most any language the meaning may not be understood right away. So this gives opening to another method of translation that is more thought for thought (called dynamic equivalence). This method is more concern in translation meanings rather than words.
I mention this second point because all bible translations are either one or a mixed of the above methods. Each method has a more useful application than the other. For preaching and serious bible study the Formal Equivalence translations are better applied. These would be: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NRSV. For personal devotional reading the Dynamic Equivalence is more useful. These would be NIV, NLT, NET, and Living Bible.
But again the overall answer is how close to word for word, or thought for thought in today's language use determines the relevance of any particular translation. Not comparing translation with translation.
1 comment:
Thank you for your answer. It helped to shed a little light on the subject. Yet I still questions. One, is there any way to know which versions may look at more manuscripts and may have a better understanding of them. And second, how does the average Christian know when a Bible version may not say something from the manuscripts that needs to be there? For example, I've heard Jehovah's Witnesses use a Bible that has some things that are changed in it. How would a person, who doesn't know ancient Bible languages, know if that translation is wrong? And second, is there any way that a person can tell the difference between the "literal" and "thought-for-thought" versions? And which type of Bible is best to use in different scenarios, if they are both out there? Is there one better, whether it be the "literal" or the "thought-for-thought", for regular Bible reading, another for Bible study, another for teaching, another for preaching, another for witnessing?
Post a Comment