One of the latest research projects I have taken up over the past year has been into the realm of bible translations. Us English speakers who love God's word live in an exciting time where there is a wealth of good bible translations available. Most countries only have one, maybe two translations of the Bible. This is a good problem for us English speakers to have! I will be posting more updates, but here is some preliminary information for those who want to know more about the bible you own.
There are two major translation methods. Formal equivalence (word-for-word), and functional equivalence (thought-for-thought). In all translation methods, the main goal should be to accurately speak what is communicated in God's word without changing the intended meaning or inserting bias.
Word-for-word translations are not necessarily better, and there is no true word-for-word bible translations. Even the phrase word-for-word makes it sound better and more accurate, but this is not necessarly the case. For example, here is a true word-for-word translation of John 3:16:
"Thus for he loved the God the world that the son the only/unique he gave so that every the one believing in him not may perish but have life eternal."
Yeah, so translators need to take some liberty in moving words around so the meaning is not lost. Translations like the King James (KJ), New American Standard (NASB), and English Standard Version (ESV), would be considered word-for-word, even though they really are not. Those that speak a second language will know one could never do a true word-for-word translation. These formal equivilance translations try to give presidence to the form of the original Greek or Hebrew and translate that form into English. This does not always work well, which is why we get a lot of "bible sounding" language that does not sound like proper English.
Also, the English language changes. When the King James was being read in the 1600's, people understood it because people spoke that way. We don't speak that way today which is why people often scratch their heads when reading King James, and that's not how the original Greek and Hebrew was. Formal-equivilance with an outdated language can make something nearly unreadable today. Ah, and you likely thought it was you when you couldn't properly read the bible! The original language of the bible was in the original tounge of people that day so one could understand it.
Also, how would you translate "he is in a pickle" into a different language? This is an English idiom which means someone is in trouble. Does it mean this person is litterly inside of a pickle? Idoms don't translate well as cultures are different, and idoms change over time. Mistranslating idoms such as the example above in word-for-word translations comes up with some funny verses as Mark Strauss demonstrates from the Better Bibles Blog:
Amos 4:6 ESV “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities” Luke 17:35 ESV “There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”
Functional equivilance, or thought-for-thought translates the same thoughts idea, and idoms from the original language into the language we speak today. The best example of this would be the New Living Translation (not to be confused with the Living Bible which is a paraphrase). The NLT is not a paraphrase as so many mistake it as, but an excellent formal equivilance that is readable and accurate tranaslated by a team of scholars from the original Greek and Hebrew. It also translates outdated time, length and volume measurements into measurements we use today.
Then there are versions such as the New International Version (NIV) and New English Translation (NET) which vary between the two translation methods when appropriate while still attempting to retain rediablilty and accuracy. On the opposite end of the spectum are paraphrases, or translations that places someone interpertation and theological spin on, usually done by one person. If you have The Message, or any other dumbed-down paraphrase, please get rid of it as there are more readiable and accurate to God's word translations out there.
While there are many good bible versions, there is no perfect bible translation, or translation method. Both methods have their pros and cons. My personal favorites are NASB, NIV and NLT. My primary bible is a NIV which I supplement with a NLT, and use a NASB on occasion. I also consult other versions such as the NET, ESV and KJ with Strong's Numbers.
Which bible version do you use?
1 comment:
I have always thought formal equivalence/"word-for-word" translations are the way to go. My parents both prefer the NASB; I've used NIV, New King James (NKJV) and ESV, and I find the ESV to be my favorite. Although I grew up on the NIV, as I branched out to other translations I discovered that many of the specific instances of translation are a little looser than in the others, and it tends to avoid some of the longer (but richer) theological terms (words like "atonement," "propitiation," etc.). I don't particularly like the "writing" style of the NKJV; it just doesn't resonate with me. But I love the ESV. There are still times when I wish it would translate something differently than it does, but on the whole I've found it to be accurate, rich, and readable while still maintaining a high standard of literary quality.
Many of the churches in my denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America [PCA]) use the ESV, including my church, which is enough for me in most cases to influence my decision (I hate reading along in church with a different translation and having to "translate" in my head between what I'm hearing and what I'm reading). But I'm really glad that that happens to be the case, because the ESV is my favorite translation anyway.
Hope that wasn't too long of a comment! :)
AJ Harbison
The Listening Blog
Post a Comment