Are Translations Relevant?

I recently heard a guest preacher--and I admit a good one--say that the King    James was the best translation (he has been preaching for 64 years--old school!) and that most of the other translations are not "worth reading." I took umbrage but I listened to his sermon patiently and forgave him for his slight indiscretion. This really got me to thinking. When I saw him after the sermon I asked in a civil manner if he could come up with any reason to fault the NIV, a Bible used in my church--no response. I told him I thought the best translation--if you have to pick one--was the ESV; he told me to "enjoy it!" I wouldn't put someone down for enjoying his version, believing it is the best translation, but to say others are not worth reading I don't understand.

I enjoy many translations. Charles Swindoll says that if you only listen to one preacher you will lose objectivity; I think the same goes for reading just one translation. Subjective judgment based on feelings is not the real reason to be partial to a translation. It is easy to understand that a preacher from Wales would think this though: because you like "Englishisms" or the archaic words that are in Elizabethan English doesn't mean it's the best translation even if it's the best English (which is 400 years old this year).

It's good to enjoy your Bible but that doesn't make it the best one. However, bear in mind that having an "Aha!" moment or inspiration or illumination does not mean your reading the "right" translation; like when neo-orthodox Swiss theologian Karl Barth said the passage "becomes" the Word of God when we have an existential experience with it such as: getting goosebumps, chills down your spine or a warm feeling such as a burning in the bosom like Mormons get from the Book of Mormon to authenticate it. Enjoy the Word of God period; no "ifs, ands or buts" about it.

I read several versions and have memorized most of my verses in the New King  James Version. I think that you can get "Bible fatigue" by reading too much of one version because the freshness wears out and you may not get the fresh insights and a new take that you can get from an unfamiliar version that might make you think twice. This is especially true when I read my Luther translation into German. If your doctrines depend upon one translation, then you are in trouble; the only "inspired version" is the original extant autographs in the Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

We have a group of "King James only" people in our church that really said aloud "Amen" when the preacher said this. What about the people of France, and Germany? Do they have an "inspired version" too, or must they learn English? I read Martin Luther's translation from the original languages into Modern High German daily and I think his language is faultless, but even Luther made mistakes. I showed three obvious mistranslations to one of these King James adherents but they are adamant. This kind of stubborn thinking is divisive and counterproductive to a church.

The important thing is that people are reading God's Word--God protects His Word:  when I bought a Bible at Walmart for $5 and one of these adherents asked me what version it was saying, "Too bad, the King James is the "inspired version!" He went on about how it was "authorized" and the "first one." With all due respect, the King James Version was the favorite amongst evangelicals until 1978 when the New International Version replaced it, now there is a resurgence of what seems to be nostalgia and a throwback to the "good old days." Now, don't get me wrong! I think every well-read Christian should be familiar with the King James, especially since it has influenced our culture and language so much--many phrases of our language are right from the King James Version--it is English at its best!

Actually the Wycliffe translation of c. A.D. 1380 was the first in English but Tyndale was the "Father of the English Bible,"[the New Testament published in 1525 in Germany because it was illegal in England and the Old in 1535 after Coverdale completed it, not knowing Hebrew--he used Luther's German Old Testament]. The Geneva Bible (first with verses and not to have Gothic letters, the one favored by the Puritans, as a household Bible and used by Shakespeare, d. 1616), the Great Bible, the official pulpit Bible dedicated to King Henry the VIII, whose eyes Tyndale prayed would be opened when he was burned at the stake, and the Bishops Bible, published 1568 for Queen Elizabeth I (revised for the King James and the "official" Bible of the time) preceded it, too. The official didn't mean popular, but it became popular later, and thus we have the King James which used Elizabethan English that had already been out of style just to sound "majestic." (Nota bene that the King James Anglican translators were offended by the Calvinistic Geneva Bible.) Virtually all translations up to modern times have used Tyndale as the starting point directly or indirectly.

I think the NLT, the New Living Translation, popular for new believers, is nearly a in modern English, but it is still technically a translation--and is an example of "dumbing down" the Bible. The NASB, New American Standard Bible, is the most literal, but difficult to understand figures of speech and idioms. The NIV is an easy read at a low-grade level and translates thought for thought instead of word for word, and it claims to follow the King James where it is accurate, which can be difficult to understand sometimes, such as idioms. It was the work of over one hundred scholars working from the best manuscripts and saw the need for a Bible in contemporary English. The NKJV or New King James Version tries to stay faithful to the King James, except for the "Englishisms" and archaic words. Many people who loved the King James will accept this one readily. I recommend the ESV or English Standard Version which claims to be as literal as possible and this version doesn't do your thinking for you or "digest" it before you get to it. The CEV or Contemporary English Version is "user-friendly" for those seeking easy comprehensibility and speedy reading because it is written at the elementary-school reading level; it tries to be "lyrical and lucid" to the listener as well as the reader. I like to compare my Martin Luther translation to see how he translates something--it is very enlightening. The important thing is that you get a translation you can feel comfortable with--and don't judge people by their translations; for instance, the RSV of 1952 and 1971 or the Revised Standard Version, the first modern translation was largely a revision of the King James Version, was published by the National Council of Churches, which is dubious by evangelical standards.

If you want to be accurate and are debating doctrines you have to go to the original languages or trust some scholar of these languages, but when you do that you can be taken advantage of because you're vulnerable, and can be led astray if you're not a Berean who searches the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11).[My brother Randy tells me a good idea is to read the preface to see what kind of translation the publisher is trying to make and the disclaimers (such as not showing dynamic equivalence or mood word translations like Oh! or Ho! etc.) to note.]

Some translations use functional (or thought-for-thought translation) equivalence that is what the author is trying to say in a way we can understand it and others use formal or word-for-word equivalence whereas the translation is more literal to what was written in the original. The goal is to get an experience that the original audience had when reading as a balance of the two--not so literal you can't understand it, and not so paraphrased it does your thinking for you.

A word to wise is sufficient: The King James and the New International Version (International Bible Society now Biblica) rely on the Masoretic Text (added vowells) as published in the Biblia Hebraica (from a 12th-century copy), but the NIV also consults the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament. The American Standard Version or ASV was a revision of the KJV in 1901. The New American Standard Bible or NASB (from the Lockman foundation) relies on Nestle's Greek New Testament. The NIV relies on the Textus Receptus and the Majority Texts for the New Testament. Sometimes notes are given such as other manuscripts read as follows, the best manuscripts read so and so, etc. Sometimes we can go by what the Church Fathers said or quoted, e.g., they never quoted the longer ending of Mark. The newer translations have the advantage of better manuscripts than they had available for the Authorized Version, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text (THE INSERTION OF VOWELS).   There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and thousands in other translations to compare and see if the veracity of the copyists can be trusted. There is no evidence of the corruption of the text.

Some people are impressed that because some 54 or so translators (HAVING OVER 100 ISN'T UNCOMMON BY TODAY'S STANDARDS) were commissioned for the Authorized Version that it was the best; actually more translators were used for the NIV, which was international in scope, and the result wasn't affected by sectarian bias,--using many denominations of translators--and the team for the ESV was over 100 different scholars, but the Anglican translators of the King James were subject to bias and didn't like the popular Geneva Bible that was published in Switzerland.

There is a niche market for everyone:

As they say: "to each his own!" The issue is whether we go to the lowest common denominator or try to edify believers. Words are the building blocks of knowledge and to use simplistic language is counterproductive because it compromises doctrine. For instance, the English prof who is a baby believer would not feel handicapped with the KJV while the mature believer who is unsophisticated in reading should probably read the New Living Translation by Tyndale publishers, the NLT, which is trying to stay loyal to the legacy of the Living Bible. To mention a few specialty Bibles: the NET Bible or the New English Translation Bible (lots of interpreters, textual criticism and study notes available at NETBible.org on the internet), the Holman Christian Standard Bible or HCSB NOW THE CSB (very contemporary translated by 90 scholars representing 20 evangelical denominations under the aegis of the Southern Baptist Convention), The MESSAGE is a paraphrase full of very modern, contemporary idioms, the NCV or New Century Version is based on the ICB or International Children's Bible, the NRSV or New Revised Standard Version is for mainline and interconfessional adults, the NAB or New American Bible is Catholic, the AMP, or the Amplified Bible (good for word study), and the J. B. Phillips, A Translation in Modern English (a classic). Some translations just try to put it in contemporary English which changes every generation and needs constant updating (the NET re-translates every 5 years). It is good to make an informed decision though and not pick one just because it is a best-seller. One must strike a balance between being completely literal where it is word for word or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence, that is thought for thought and optimal equivalence, which is a balance of both. There is a trade-off between readability and literal accuracy--nuances of meaning exist. A totally literal translation is not readable (try reading an interlinear Greek text), and a totally readable one is not literal--there must be a compromise. Idioms don't always translate and are misunderstood if translated literally, as anyone who has studied a foreign language will tell you--like jokes that lose something in the translation; some things are untranslatable.

[Paraphrases are not translations and take great liberties with the text, mixing in interpretation with "pseudo-translation."] I think The MESSAGE by Eugene Peterson is a valid paraphrase by a true believer, but it is limited as a paraphrase and should be reckoned as just that--you won't even recognize some of the verses. The TLB or The Living Bible by Dr. Kenneth Taylor was the New York Times No. 1 best-seller in 1972 and 1973 (SELLING OVER 40 MILLION COPIES), but that is also a paraphrase. They may aid in study or give insight but don't use them for proof-texting.

As for me, I have several Bibles of different translations and don't rely on a certain one as gospel truth and error free but get edified by them all. I think we should be tolerant of others who favor different translations than the one we've grown accustomed to. I still know so many verses in the NKJV that when I'm reading another version I can compare the verses.

The psalmist said, "O how I love your law!" I really don't know which translation I like the most because I'm too busy reading the various versions and all I know is that I love the Bible, regardless of the version it's the Word of God. [The New Testament writers were often quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation.]
Soli Deo Gloria

EXAMPLES OF FORMAL OR DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE:  KJV, NKJV, CSB, NRSV, HCSB, ESV, NASB, RSV.  EXAMPLES OF FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE:  NLT, NIV, CEV, CEB, NCV.  EXAMPLES OF PARAPHRASE OR FREEFORM:  THE LIVING BIBLE, THE MESSAGE, GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN.  
Randy Broberg said...
On target. One minor point is I think the "thought for thought" -- the so-called dynamic equivalence method is still a translation. A paraphrase departs even more from the original. Also, read any translation's forward to see what method it claims to use.

Do Translations Matter?

Some cults (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or Mormons) and conservative circles prefer the Authorized or King James Version, as you may well know. This was the favorite translation of evangelicals for decades before the NIV replaced it in 1978. Still today many conservative circles swear by the KJV. I've heard it said that the KJV is the "original" and that all other translations are corruptions (actually Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into modern English). I think this is a "Bible-club mentality" or exclusive spirit (which is what a cult has) and can lead to a narrow interpretation of the Scriptures.

First of all, the original translation into English was by John Wycliffe (not counting King Alfred translating some Psalms into old English or Anglo-Saxon), but those were before the printing press. Also, Tyndale (who prayed to God to open the eyes of the king of England--King Henry VIII) is considered the Father of the English version, and Coverdale finished his work. The Geneva Bible (the first one in regular type and verses) was the most popular one of the 16th century and England was not happy that the Bishop's Bible was not as popular so they commissioned a new translation. The 54 scholars who translated the Authorized Version relied upon this former work heavily. Tyndale was a student of Luther's and relied upon Luther for his translation of the Old Testament.

Remember, it is not the translation per se that is infallible and inerrant, but the original autograph--and these are not extant today. If you really want to be accurate in your study, you really should not just go to the KJV or any other version, but to the original Koine Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew text! (Exegesis involves a working knowledge of the original tongues.) Modern translations rely on more accurate and better manuscripts than the translators of the Authorized Version had.

I think that one should read a translation that he feels comfortable with and "graduate" to more sophisticated or scholarly Bibles as he matures. I don't think one should base his doctrine upon a certain translation and I don't think any major doctrine depends upon any certain translation--God protects His Word, and that means you can get saved reading the Roman Catholic Bible or a Jehovah's Witness can be shown wrong from his own version (New World Translation).

The "Englishisms" in the KJV are hard to understand by beginning Bible students, and some words are archaic and have changed meaning since the Elizabethan English days of 1611. The New King James Version stays loyal to the KJV and just removes the "Thees and Thous" et al., and the words that are now obsolete or vague (or have changed the meaning) now, making it more readable, but staying loyal to the beautiful language as much as possible. Remember this: The goal is to get you into the Word!

There is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. A paraphrase isn't a literal word for word, but translated thoughts into idioms or appropriate phrases instead of being literal, even if it is not understandable. There is always a balance to be drawn in how literal to be and where to paraphrase a thought to give the idea. We simply don't understand some of the expressions, idioms or euphemisms of antiquity and need to relate them to our century. Newer translations usually rely upon better manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators.

There is a niche for every translation out there and God has a place of them. The NASB is considered to be very literal, while the Living Bible is a paraphrase, and the New Living Translation is cross between the two, and the NIV is a translation that looks at thoughts more than words for an easier understanding but keeps the KJV where it is considered accurate. Sometimes being literal means we can't understand it; the goal is to understand and apply!

It is good to have a favorite translation; let it be an educated or advised decision, though. For instance, some well known Bible teachers prefer the NASB as being the most literal. The next best thing to knowing the original languages is having a favorite translation, but know why it is your favorite. It is not good to just compare translations and pick out the one that suits your fancy or is the most convenient to your school of theology. Remember, it is the autographs in the original tongue that are inerrant, and all translations are fallible.

In short, the best translation for you is the one you will read or that God connects with you in.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Test of Orthodoxy?

We all tend to have our favorite Bibles and maybe even translations, but it shouldn't be a test of one's orthodoxy to the faith to be partial to one translation, e.g., the Authorized King James Version. You are really only reading the true Word of God when you read the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic because all translations fall short. You need to realize that the Word is verbally inspired and the exact word in the original is inspired for a purpose. Settle all doctrinal issues with exegesis, or returning to the original text.

I realized the problem we have when at Bible study yesterday that someone said, "I like that translation!" just because of the choice of wording that hit his funny-bone. It is not what words impress us in the translations that are paramount, but the original text. The best translations are more difficult to read because they don't do all the work for you and call a spade a spade and don't use idioms that become obsolete and are only fashionable and current for a while. I'm not saying a young believer shouldn't read the NLT (New Living Translation), the CEV (Contemporary English Version), or other modern-day translation for example, but he must realize what he is doing and compare versions. Don't get stuck in only one version, which will take away much perspective and insight: by resorting to this one can get Bible fatigue, where it seems like you are bored with an all-to-familiar text. Variation brings challenge and new input or inspiration and illumination.

I find that my doctrines don't depend on any one translation and I can read without hesitation almost any translation; however, I know hundreds of verses by memory and I am able to compare these verses, and I already know what I believe through good Bible-teaching exposure.  I feel free to use any translation and to quote Mother Teresa of Calcutta, though I am not a Catholic. Notes of explanation should be given to the reason for a specific translation being favored: Is it more literal or easier to understand, for instance? (Not that it sounds good or catchy!)

Once you have studied what the original language or wording says you will be somewhat disillusioned about the quality of a translation and lose faith in a so-called "King-James-only" faith. In conclusion, God can speak through any translation, but we are to exercise common sense and not be ignorant about what we are doing, but not skeptical either.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Translations Relevant?

I recently heard a guest preacher--and I admit a good one--say that the King James was the best translation (he has been preaching for 64 years--old school!) and that most of the other translations are not "worth reading." I took umbrage but I listened to his sermon patiently and forgave him for his slight indiscretion. This really got me to thinking, though. When I saw him after the sermon I asked in a civil manner if he could come up with any reason to fault the NIV, a Bible used in my church--no response. I told him I thought the best translation--if you have to pick one--was the ESV; he told me to "enjoy it!" I wouldn't put someone down for enjoying his version, believing it is the best translation, but to say others are not worth reading I don't understand.

I enjoy many translations.  Charles Swindoll says that if you only listen to one preacher you will lose objectivity; I think the same goes for reading just one translation. Subjective judgment based on feelings is not the real reason to be partial to a translation. It is easy to understand that a preacher from Wales would think this though: because you like "Englishisms," or archaic words that are in Elizabethan English doesn't mean it's the best translation even if it's the best English (which is 400 years old this year).

It's good to enjoy your Bible but that doesn't make it the best one. However, bear in mind that having an "Aha!" moment,  inspiration or illumination does not mean your reading the "right" translation; like when neo-orthodox Swiss theologian Karl Barth said the passage "becomes" the Word of God when we have an "existential experience" with it such as: getting goosebumps, chills down your spine, or a warm feeling such as a burning in the bosom like Mormons get from the Book of Mormon to authenticate it. Enjoy the Word of God period; no if's, and's or but's about it,  case closed!

I read several versions and have memorized most of my verses in the New King James Version. I think that you can get "Bible fatigue" by reading too much of one version because the freshness wears out and you may not get the fresh insights and a new take that you can get from an unfamiliar version that might make you think twice. This is especially true when I read my Luther translation into German. If your doctrines depend upon one translation, then you are in trouble; the only "inspired version" is the original (no longer extant) autographs in the Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

We have a group of "King James only" people in our church that really said aloud "Amen" when the preacher said this. What about the people of France, and Germany? Do they have an "inspired version" too, or must they learn English? I read Martin Luther's translation from the original languages into Modern High German daily and I think his language is faultless, but even Luther made mistakes. I showed three obvious mistranslations to one of these King James adherents but they are adamant. This kind of stubborn thinking is divisive and counterproductive to a church.

The important thing is that people are reading God's Word--God protects His Word!; when I bought a Bible at Walmart for $5 and one of these adherents asked me what version it was saying, "Too bad, the King James is the "inspired version!" He went on about how it was "authorized" and the "first one." With all due respect, the King James Version was the favorite amongst evangelicals until 1978 when the New International Version replaced it, now there is a resurgence of what seems to be nostalgia and a throwback to the "good old days." Now, don't get me wrong! I think every well-read Christian should be familiar with the King James, especially since it has influenced our culture and language so much--many phrases of our language are right from the King James Version--it is English at its best!

Actually the Wycliffe translation ca. A.D. 1380 was the first in English ( though not modern English),  but Tyndale, a student of Luther, was the "Father of the English Bible,"[the New Testament published in 1525 in Germany because it was illegal in England and the Old in 1535 after Coverdale completed it, not knowing Hebrew--he used Luther's German Old Testament]. The Geneva Bible (first with verses and not to have Gothic letters, the one favored by the Puritans, as a household Bible and used by Shakespeare, d. 1616), the Great Bible, the official pulpit Bible dedicated to King Henry the VIII, whose eyes Tyndale prayed would be opened when he was burned at the stake, and the Bishops Bible, published 1568 for Queen Elizabeth I (revised for the King James and the "official" Bible of the time) preceded it, too. The official didn't mean popular, but it became popular later, and thus we have the King James which used Elizabethan English that had already been out of style just to sound "majestic." (Note that the King James Anglican translators were offended by the Calvinistic Geneva Bible.) Virtually all translations up to modern times have used Tyndale as the starting point directly or indirectly.

I think the NLT, the New Living Translation, popular for new believers, is nearly a paraphrase, but it is still technically a translation--and is an example of "dumbing down" the Bible. The NASB, New American Standard Bible, is the most literal, but difficult to understand figures of speech and idioms. The NIV is an easy read at a low-grade level and translates thought for thought instead of word for word, and it claims to follow the King James where it is accurate, which can be difficult to understand sometimes, such as idioms. It was the work of over one hundred scholars working from the best manuscripts and saw the need for a Bible in contemporary English. The NKJV or New King James Version tries to stay faithful to King James, except for the "Englishisms" and archaic words. Many people who loved the King James will accept this one readily. I recommend the ESV or English Standard Version which claims to be as literal as possible and this version doesn't do your thinking for you or "digest" it before you get to it. The CEV or Contemporary English Version is "user-friendly" for those seeking easy comprehensibility and speedy reading because it is written at the elementary-school reading level; it tries to be "lyrical and lucid" to the listener as well as the reader. I like to compare my Martin Luther translation to see how he translates something--it is very enlightening. The important thing is that you get a translation you can feel comfortable with--and don't judge people by their translations; for instance, the RSV of 1952 and 1971 or the Revised Standard Version, the first modern translation was largely a revision of the King James Version, was published by the National Council of Churches, which is dubious by evangelical standards.

If you want to be accurate and are debating doctrines you have to go to the original languages or trust some scholar of these languages, but when you do that you can be taken advantage of because you're vulnerable, and can be led astray if you're not a Berean who searches the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11).   [My brother tells me a good idea is to read the preface to see what kind of translation the publisher is trying to make and the disclaimers (such as not showing dynamic equivalence or mood word translations like Oh! or Ho! etc.) to note.] Some translations use functional (or thought-for-thought translation) equivalence that is what the author is trying to say in a way we can understand it and others use formal or word-for-word equivalence whereas the translation is more literal to what was written in the original. The goal is to get an experience that the original audience had when reading as a balance of the two--not so literal you can't understand it, and not so paraphrased it does your thinking for you.

A word to wise is sufficient: The King James and the New International Version (International Bible Society) rely on the Masoretic Text as published in the Biblia Hebraica (from a 12th-century copy), but the NIV also consults the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament. The American Standard Version or ASV was a revision of the KJV in 1901. The New American Standard Bible or NASB (from the Lockman Foundation) relies on Nestle's Greek New Testament. The NIV relies on the Textus Receptus and the Majority Texts for the New Testament. Sometimes notes are given such as: other manuscripts read as follows, the best manuscripts read so and so, etc. Sometimes we can go by what the Church Fathers said or quoted, e.g., they never quoted the longer ending of Mark. The newer translations have the advantage of better manuscripts than they had available for the Authorized Version, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and thousands in other translations to compare and see if the veracity of the copyists can be trusted. There is no evidence of the corruption of the text.

Some people are impressed that because 54 translators were commissioned for the Authorized Version that it was the best; actually more translators were used for the NIV, which was international in scope, and the result wasn't affected by sectarian bias,--using many denominations of translators--and the team for the ESV was over 100 different scholars, but the Anglican translators of the King James were subject to bias and didn't like the popular Geneva Bible that was published in Switzerland.

There is a niche market for everyone;
as they say: "to each his own!" The issue is whether we go to the lowest common denominator or try to edify believers. Words are the building blocks of knowledge and to use simplistic language is counterproductive because it compromises doctrine. For instance, the English prof who is a baby believer would not feel handicapped with the KJV while the mature believer who is unsophisticated in reading should probably read the New Living Translation by Tyndale publishers, the NLT, which is trying to stay loyal to the legacy of the Living Bible. To mention a few specialty Bibles: the NET Bible or the New English Translation Bible (lots of interpreters, textual criticism and study notes available at NETBible.org on the internet), the Holman Christian Standard Bible or HCSB (very contemporary translated by 90 scholars representing 20 evangelical denominations under the aegis of the Southern Baptist Convention), The Message is a paraphrase full of very modern, contemporary idioms, the NCV or New Century Version is based on the ICB or International Children's Bible, the NRSV or New Revised Standard Version is for mainline and inter-confessional adults, the NAB or New American Bible is Catholic, the AMP, or the Amplified Bible (good for word study), and the J. B. Phillips, A Translation in Modern English (a classic).

Some translations just try to put it in contemporary English which changes every generation and needs constant updating (the NET re-translates every 5 years). It is good to make an informed decision though and not pick one just because it is a best-seller. One must strike a balance between being completely literal where it is a word for word or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence, that is thought for thought and optimal equivalence, which is a balance of both. There is a trade-off between readability and literal accuracy--nuances of meaning exist. A totally literal translation is not readable (try reading an interlinear Greek text), and a totally readable one is not literal--there must be a compromise. Idioms don't always translate and are misunderstood if translated literally, as anyone who has studied a foreign language will tell you--like jokes that lose something in the translation; some things are untranslatable.

[Paraphrases are translations too but take great liberties with the text, mixing in interpretation with "pseudo-translation."] I think The Message by Eugene Peterson is a valid paraphrase by a true believer, but it is limited as a paraphrase and should be reckoned as just that--you won't even recognize some of the verses. The TLB or The Living Bible by Dr. Kenneth Taylor was the New York Times No. 1 best-seller in 1972 and 1973, but that is also a paraphrase. They may aid in study or give insight, but don't use them for proof-texting.

As for me, I have several Bibles of different translations and don't rely on a certain one as gospel truth and error-free but get edified by them all. I think we should be tolerant of others who favor different translations than the ones we've grown accustomed to. I still know so many verses in the NKJV that when I'm reading another version I can compare the verses. The psalmist said, "O how I love your law!" I really don't know which translation I like the most because I'm too busy reading the various versions and all I know is that I love the Bible, regardless of the version it's the Word of God. [The New Testament writers were often quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation.]

Soli Deo Gloria!
1 comments:

Randy Broberg said...

On target. One minor point is I think the "thought for thought" -- the so-called dynamic equivalence method is still a translation. A paraphrase departs even more from the original. Also, read any translation's forward to see what method it claims to use.