Preferred Bible translation

[JimmyB]

13 hours ago, Marathoner said:

I have one in hardcover. Very handy.

As a rule I prefer the NASB because it references the Septuagint, Dead Sea scrolls, as well as texts used by other translations in the footnotes. Alternative renderings of words and phrases are also provided in those footnotes when applicable.

However, I'm not passionate regarding translations. The NET is a good one! So is the NIV. 

I agree totally.  I may have to add an NASB to my collection.

[OneLight]

I thought this image would be good to understand a little more of how the translators translated.

[farouk]

27 minutes ago, OneLight said:

I thought this image would be good to understand a little more of how the translators translated.

@OneLight Interesting; I do think that for study a fairly formal translation is more useful. I do prefer the KJV.

[JimmyB]

19 hours ago, farouk said:

I do prefer the KJV in English. For study, a more formal version can be useful. Some of the newer versions come across as more free-flowing when it comes to narrative, but for phrase by phrase study a more formal version can be helpful, imho.

I'm not sure what you mean by "formal".  The KJV was written in the common language of the early 17th Century.  Other translations such as the NIV and the NRSVue are written in the common language of our era.

Two of the things that I dislike about the KJV are a) the text being broken up into individual verses and b) the change in meaning of some of the words in the past four centuries.

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

My preferred translations are NKJV, NASB, & NIV.

I avoid KJV, NLT, NIRV, NWT, & MSG

[farouk]

2 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "formal".  The KJV was written in the common language of the early 17th Century.  Other translations such as the NIV and the NRSVue are written in the common language of our era.

Two of the things that I dislike about the KJV are a) the text being broken up into individual verses and b) the change in meaning of some of the words in the past four centuries.

By formal, it closely follows the original rather than being one person's approximation of what he thinks.............

[JimmyB]

3 hours ago, farouk said:

By formal, it closely follows the original rather than being one person's approximation of what he thinks.............

That is an unconventional definition.  The KJV and others translated as closely to the meaning of the sources that were available.  There are, of course, one person paraphrases, abut there are also "formal" translations such as Youngs Literal Translation, whic, if you've ever read it, is really strange.

Every translation has to decide the balance between word-for-word and meaning-for-meaning.  Even the most "formal" translations deviate significantly from the actual words.  Personally, I prefer those which transmit the meaning in the language that I have used every day since childhood. 

There are very few translations that are one person's approximation of what he or she thinks; they are clearly understood to be paraphrases.

[Alive]

I find Young’s very helpful at times, but reading lexes and original text in parallel the best tools, when a question arises.

[farouk]

8 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

That is an unconventional definition.  The KJV and others translated as closely to the meaning of the sources that were available.  There are, of course, one person paraphrases, abut there are also "formal" translations such as Youngs Literal Translation, whic, if you've ever read it, is really strange.

Every translation has to decide the balance between word-for-word and meaning-for-meaning.  Even the most "formal" translations deviate significantly from the actual words.  Personally, I prefer those which transmit the meaning in the language that I have used every day since childhood. 

There are very few translations that are one person's approximation of what he or she thinks; they are clearly understood to be paraphrases.

My point is also I guess that if word studies are being done, and how they fit phrase by phrase into a passage, then a 'dynamic equivalence' type of translation is less likely to be helpful.

[JimmyB]

15 hours ago, farouk said:

My point is also I guess that if word studies are being done, and how they fit phrase by phrase into a passage, then a 'dynamic equivalence' type of translation is less likely to be helpful.

My opinion is that the Bible should be translated to be understood.  If one translated the words and phrases literally -- and there is not a single translation that does this -- then it would be more-or-less meaningless.  I am currently reading a book entitled "One Bible, Many Versions" by Dave Brunn.  Here is an excerpt regarding logos: "yes, sometimes logos does mean "word".  But in the KJV we find that it also means "treatise", "account", "reason", "communication" and "saying" among the twenty-four possibilities.  Many of the twenty-four renderings of logos in the KJV are used in other versions too, such as the ESV and NASB.  But those versions also translated logos in ways that the KJV did not.  If we survey all the ways the ESV and the NASB translated logos we will find more than thirty additional renderings."  And these translations are considered to be word-for-word!

He points out that clearly there is no such thing as a precise word-for-word translation.  Every single translation puts word into the destination language according to their meaning.