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…