Any here aware of KJVO views?

[YeshuaFan]

I had used the KJV all of my life until the ESV came out. I have found it to be a very literal and formative translation.

It seems to "read" much more like the Kjv as compared to say the Nas

 

[BibleLover]

It seems to "read" much more like the Kjv as compared to say the Nas

That's true. The NASB is so literal that the English is stilted.

 

[Origen]

This idea of a literal translation is really a myth. The Greek and New Testament scholar Robert Mounce address this topic. He was one of the translators on both the ESV and the NIV.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Literal translation needs copious and detailed footnotes otherwise it leads to confusion.

Example: "I kicked his butt", or "I rubbed his face in his lies", or "he ate crow".

Imagine how wrong of an understanding one would have upon seeing that translated literally without footnotes.

 

[YeshuaFan]

That's true. The NASB is so literal that the English is stilted.

Think its called "wooden", but to me a formal translation that is literally would be the best one for serious studies, but not the best to use while preaching a sermon

 

[YeshuaFan]

This idea of a literal translation is really a myth. The Greek and New Testament scholar Robert Mounce address this topic. He was one of the translators on both the ESV and the NIV.

The translation philosophy though is valid for a translation, as while none are strictly literal nor paraphrased, they can be mainly formal or dynamic, and prefer a more formal literal version for serious bible studies

 

[Origen]

The translation philosophy though is valid for a translation, as while none are strictly literal nor paraphrased, they can be mainly formal or dynamic, and prefer a more formal literal version for serious bible studies

It is valid in theory.