Whereas the NKJV sought to correct that with consistency in word translation (something the NASB is well known for doing (most of the time)). The KJV used different english words for the same Hebrew/Greek words. How they can claim the KJV is MORE literal than the NKJV is questionable. And, as one person said, ultimately the best translation of the Bible is the one you read. Nonetheless, we can thank God that we have an abundance of English translations within our reach.
#DIFFERENT BIBLE VERSIONS LITERAL SOFTWARE#
Having two such similar literal translations will only divide the market, make resource tools such as concordances and software more expensive for each than the would be for one, and so on. How I wish all the effort used to produce and market the ESV could have been poured into improving and distributing more widely the NASB.
#DIFFERENT BIBLE VERSIONS LITERAL UPDATE#
I also think the 1995 update to the NASB was an improvement in some ways and a deterioration in others. As an aside, I hate the name (I’m American, by the way) and it’s unfortunate that it’s been out-marketed by publishers who can make more money on their own newer translations. My favorite translation, for the reasons just mentioned, is the NASB. Moreover, literal translations offer greater opportunity to use tools like Strong’s to get at the original languages for people not fluent in them and do extensive word studies which allows Scripture to comment on itself. I prefer word-for-word translations because I want as few human being standing between me and the text as possible. Always try to look at several versions if I’m studying though and am open-minded to discover the benefits of new translations! Having grown up on the NASB which I still like and having considered the NKJV which I quite like, I generally now use the NIV because it is so widely used, readable (to my mind) and generally reliable. All of which places an important burden on Bible translators to convey what was written in the original languages as faithfully as possible (which to me includes being as readable in translation as the original was), and, I would argue, for solid margin references to explain what cannot be conveyed in simple translation.ģ. Interpretation is a necessity in translation because you cannot formulaically translate a word in one language into a word in another and repeat the process through a text: idiom and grammatical structure are often different enough to require more creative thought in translation and certain words and phrases in some languages are nearly untranslateable in such a simple ‘word-for-word’ way anyway.
I’ve changed my views on translations over the years from being a staunch advocate of what is often labelled a ‘literal’ translation (at the ‘word-for-word’ end of the spectrum) as I’ve learnt more about the nature of language.
Whilst I like a sense of being close to the original, I do like readability. I don’t like reading something where I’m not sure about the interpretation offered in a ‘thought-for-thought’ way (not a fan of the Message, though recognise that it can often capture things well and in a striking way). But generally I plump for something in the middle. Agree with the comment above that it depends what you’re planning to do with a translation.
0 kommentar(er)
