It seems to "read" much more like the Kjv as compared to say the Nas
Any here aware of KJVO views?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
That's true. The NASB is so literal that the English is stilted.
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.
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.
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
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.
And in reality, as the translations such as Nas/Asv/Nkjv would be closer to giving to us what the Greek and Hebrew texts intended to convey to us
I don't agree, but to each his own.
So you would hold that the Textus Receptus or the Bzt text would be superior then?
What? I was speaking of so-called literal translation not which Greek text is the best.
Then you would tend to see DE transltion better to use then more formal literal versions?
If you care to go back and read the paper in post 63 by Greek and New Testament scholar Robert Mounce (who was one of the translators on both the ESV and the NIV), that is what I am addressing.
You could also read Greek and New Testament scholar Dan Wallace (responsible for the NET Bible) on this topic as well.
"Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translation is simply not possible if one is going to communicate in an understandable way in the receptor language. Yet, ironically, even some biblical scholars who should know better continue to tout word-for-word translations as though they were the best. Perhaps the most word-for-word translation of the Bible in English is Wycliffe’s, done in the 1380s. Although translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was a slavishly literal translation to that text. And precisely because of this, it was hardly English."
Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation
Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…
danielbwallace.com
Would say that the more formal translations do give to us though more of theoriginal intended meaning of the Original textsIf you care to go back and read the paper in post 63 by Greek and New Testament scholar Robert Mounce (who was one of the translators on both the ESV and the NIV), that is what I am addressing.
You could also read Greek and New Testament scholar Dan Wallace (responsible for the NET Bible) on this topic as well.
"Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translation is simply not possible if one is going to communicate in an understandable way in the receptor language. Yet, ironically, even some biblical scholars who should know better continue to tout word-for-word translations as though they were the best. Perhaps the most word-for-word translation of the Bible in English is Wycliffe’s, done in the 1380s. Although translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was a slavishly literal translation to that text. And precisely because of this, it was hardly English."
Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation
Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…
Word for word, without footnotes, and without actually reading footnotes, is highly confusing.
For example, modern English slang:
"You slay!" does not mean you are a murderer.
"That's cool!" does not mean it has a cold temperature.
"He's hot headed" does not mean his temperature is high.
"She's quite a Karen" does not mean her name is 'Karen".
Imagine phrases like this translated word for word into a language that does not yet exist at a time far in the future. No wonder we are confused. We literally do not know what is actual and what is slang so we take everything as literal.
For example, modern English slang:
"You slay!" does not mean you are a murderer.
"That's cool!" does not mean it has a cold temperature.
"He's hot headed" does not mean his temperature is high.
"She's quite a Karen" does not mean her name is 'Karen".
Imagine phrases like this translated word for word into a language that does not yet exist at a time far in the future. No wonder we are confused. We literally do not know what is actual and what is slang so we take everything as literal.
Not necessarily. Your question, to me, suggest an oppositional approach to the topic (i.e. formal versus functional). I don't see them as oppositional forces competing against one another. Both are necessary and helpful. If someone is happy with the NASB (i.e. formal), I say that is just fine. If another says I prefer the NLT (i.e. functional), I say great. Just keep reading your Bible no matter which translation it is you choose. Stay in the Word.
However there are some so-called translations or paraphrases I would certainly tell people to ignore (i.e. NWT and the Message).
Good morning, YeshuaFan and Origen;
I would respond with "not necessarily" to both your posts. I agree the formal and functional should not be regarded as "oppositional" as these translations have served me well regarding the two kinds of choices;
The original language which I feel you both prefer. This also benefits me.
There is the receptive language that is translated into, in our case, English. This benefits me since I can only read and speak English which I personally enjoy even for the sake of ministry.
I'm not a professor of Biblical studies but have always enjoyed helping new students of the Bible with the translation that helped them best.
Some have started with the Message which is a free translation (paraphrase.) Yes, it does eliminate much of the historical distance as possible but is still faithful to the original text. I have personally witnessed disciples who went on to share the Gospel with non-believers and new believers, and later studied translations of the formal equivalence while others are now teaching.
God bless everyone.
Bob
I am a bit confused. To what in my post would you say "not necessarily"?
I am sorry I misspoke. I said Message when I really meant the Passion translation.
Hello Origen;
Thank you, brother, it's all good. My referring to "not necessarily" was regarding the Message.
I also learned something new today and that's the Passion translation. It sounds like a paraphrase translation?
God bless you, Origen.
Bob
Yeah I am sorry about that.
The Passion is by Brian Simmons a nut case, in my opinion, who claims divine inspiration for his so-called translation.
Last edited: