Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Origen

Poll Question: Which Translation?

Poll Question: Which Translation?  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll Question: Which Translation?



Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Just Mike said:

Perhaps a good or better answer to which translation is best, is the one you will read on a consistent regular basis.

I can't argue with that.

 

I have been tempted to explore the question of functional (or dynamic) equivalence verse the so-called literal (word for word) translation.  The fact is there is no translation that is wholly literal (word for word).  It is a myth.   I am just not sure such a thread would get any attention even though it would be eye opening for many.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Origen said:

I am just not sure such a thread would get any attention even though it would be eye opening for many.

I would definitely be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 10:48 AM, Origen said:

Which translation(s) do you use most offten?

King James Version is my favorite . However I do consult  my New King James Version on occasion . I am suspect of many of these newer versions of the bible and try to avoid them when I can.  M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matthew Duvall said:

I am suspect of many of these newer versions of the bible

Why?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of use the King James. What I mean is that it is the Bible of my preference. I enjoy how it reads and yes I like the thee's, thou's, and thy's but I whited out some parts that I feel the new versions are correct on and placed the other reading in. For example, in Colossians 3:22 the KJV reads "fearing God" but it is more accurate I think when it reads, "fearing the Lord" (in reference to Jesus). See also Acts 8:22.

Revelation 14:1 "Having His name" ought to be there as well (in reference to Jesus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These last few years, I like the version best that HAS THE LARGEST PRINT!!

 

I like the large print version of New Living Translation, when I have picked one up it is easier to read for my aging eyes, and I look at it online on BlueletterBible.org to try to see if I would like that version enough to get me one. Anyone here have any thoughts on NLT as a translation?

 

I like NRSV, I have an Interlinear NT in NRSV. 

 

I like plain old KJV because it is easier to memorize; the archaic English does not put me off because I studied a lot of old English literature in college; Beowulf, Chaucer and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an older Interlinear that is KJV and Textus Receptus (Stevens 1550); my newer Interlinear is Nestle-Aland 27th and NRSV.

 

The NIV seems a bit wooden to me.  I have RSV, ESV, Lamsa Bible from Syriac Peshitta, Orthodox Study Bible (unique because it's Old Testament is from the Septuagint -- it's NT is a NKJV).  I have the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic).  I have a parallel bible with KJV, RSV, Modern Language Version and Living Bible (which is just a paraphrase).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 6:23 PM, Origen said:

I can't argue with that.

 

I have been tempted to explore the question of functional (or dynamic) equivalence verse the so-called literal (word for word) translation.  The fact is there is no translation that is wholly literal (word for word).  It is a myth.   I am just not sure such a thread would get any attention even though it would be eye opening for many.

I think there would be a good number those of us who understand the differences. So Origen go for it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anto9us said:

Anyone here have any thoughts on NLT as a translation?

I actually like it.  I know it is a very "dynamic equivalent" version and terrible for splitting hairs over a specific word ... but often we are so focused on a leaf, we can't see the flow of the terrain for the whole darn forest.  The NLT is great for sharing with people who are not interested in what Strong's has to say and just want to understand what the heck John or Paul is trying to say.  Often that person is me. 

 

I can read the HASB and know "that's what he said" and then read the page in the NLT and say "Oh, that's what he was talking about!"  so I can go back to the NASB and see the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Holman Christian Standard Bible which is an Optimal Equivalence translation. It follows the NASB in many verses yet is more readable. I can read it and my comprehension is much better. This Bible speaks to me in a more meaningful way..

 

"In practice, translations are seldom if ever purely formal or dynamic but favor one theory of Bible translation or the other to varying degrees. Optimal equivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that a form cannot be neatly separated from meaning and should be changed (for example, nouns to verbs or third person "they" to second person "you") unless comprehension demands it. The primary goal of translation is to convey the sense of the orginal with as much clarity as the orignal text and the translation language permit. Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal equivalence but also recognizes it limitations. Optimal equivalence starts with an exhaustive analysis  of the text at every level (word, phrase, clause sentence discourse) in the original language to determine its original meaning and intention (or purpose). Then relying on the latest and best language tools and experts, the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information  and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original. The HCSB uses optimal equivalence as its translation philosophy."

 

Page xli Introduction to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. The Holman Christian Standard Study Bible Copyright 2010 by Holman Bible Publishers Nashville, Tennessee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use blueletterbible.org as a quick and dirty tool -- I used to have a software program far more advanced, and it was free, but after some windows updates, it would no longer work anymore.  I have not installed E-Sword but am thinking about it.

 

Even the paraphrases have their uses.  I had a paperback Living Bible - it had check boxes for every chapter in the Bible - to check off after you read a chapter.  When I was 19-20 I read through the entire Bible - checking off chapters in that Living Bible whether I read them from that version or King James - eventually all the chapters were checked.

 

One day in college I had a flat tire. The jack, even fully extended, did not raise the car enough to change the tire. I lowered it and started over, putting my Living Bible under the base of the jack. It worked and I was able to change the tire. 

 

One day I was bad-mouthing the paraphrase Good News For Modern Man.  Rick quietly said "I was SAVED reading Good News For Modern Man" . I felt horrible.

 

Even THE MESSAGE has its purposes, I no longer have that version.  It had a beautiful very thick cover.  I no longer have the Living Bible whose cover was skinned up by my jack, I held onto it for years and years

 

Thx, atpollard, for thoughts on NLT.

 

I too think Origen should go ahead with a thread on dynamic equivalence vs literal translation

 

Young's Literal Translation would seem to be at one end of the spectrum -- the Paraphrases at the other.

 

Question - when the Septuagint was done - how many Jews spoke/read Greek?  Where were they? Alexandria?

Is it true that scholars can tell that most OT quotes in NT are from Septuagint version rather than Hebrew?

 

The Catholic NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE has a unique feature -- anywhere in the NT that an OT passage is quoted, paraphrased or alluded to - that passage is set off in italics.

 

The KJV is sometimes confusing as to when it uses  "Esaias" rather than "Isaiah", but the worst inconsistency of names like that that I have ever seen is the Lamsa Bible from Syriac Peshitta.  I cannot swallow Lamsa's theory that all the NT was first done in Aramaic/Syriac, but he had an interesting point that it was "rope" rather than "camel" that was to go thru the eye of a needle.  If he is right, all those sermons about a NEEDLE being a structure that a camel had to kneel down to get through, and therefore we had to be humble, etc, are just in error.  Apparently, Aramaic words for 'rope' and 'camel' were just a jot or tittle different.

 

I like looking at paradoxes between different gospels.  I think only Luke tells of "the repentant thief" on the cross, other gospel just says Christ was crucified between two malefactors who mocked him, with no mention that one thief changed his mind.

 

Simon Peter cut a guy's ear off when they came to take Jesus - only Luke - the doctor, tells us that Jesus put the guy's ear back on.

 

We have many versions to read, we have software tools and concordances, we can come to message boards and argue with others.

 

It is easier for us today to do thorough comparisons than it is for either a rope or a camel to go through the eye of a needle

 

 

Edited by Anto9us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:00 AM, Origen said:

Why?

I should have taped the show a few months ago when Darrel Dumas of " Touching Hands Ministry " did a segment on his program that showed serious errors in some of the newer versions of the bible . I was surprised to see the gross errors in some of these newer versions . The NIV being the biggest offender . Darrel pointed out several places in the NIV where entire verses were missing or badly misinterpreted . Other versions were critiqued and examined for errors and missing verses also . I guess the only way to verify that is to actually contact his ministry and ask for a dvd of the program he did concerning these errors . That's why .   :-)    M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matthew Duvall said:

I should have taped the show a few months ago when Darrel Dumas of " Touching Hands Ministry " did a segment on his program that showed serious errors in some of the newer versions of the bible . I was surprised to see the gross errors in some of these newer versions . The NIV being the biggest offender . Darrel pointed out several places in the NIV where entire verses were missing or badly misinterpreted . Other versions were critiqued and examined for errors and missing verses also . I guess the only way to verify that is to actually contact his ministry and ask for a dvd of the program he did concerning these errors . That's why .   🙂 M

Most all the verses that are not in most modern translations were not in the oldest manuscript. King James Only people attack these modern translations, and sadly they are wrong themselves. Really a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy