notes fingers into a translation, and a few other reasons I believe this translation to be out of date, and somewhat questionable. New American Standard Bible 1995 Update I’ll try not to play favorites, but just so you can see through my facade, this is my favorite translation of the bible. In this version of the bible they have attempted to give a literal translation in modern grammar and vocabulary. If they deviate from a literal translation for the sake of grammar or meaning, they note it. When they insert words to help it make sense which aren’t in the original manuscripts (Biblia Hebraica, Dead Sea Scrolls, NA26/UBS4) they italicize them so the reader is totally aware of what is there and what is not. They also provide alternate translations where applicable. This translation is pretty readable, very accurate, and one of my favorite bibles to use when studying. Unfortunately, I have nothing bad to say about this translation of the bible. There is some influence from interpretation, but it is minimal. New English Translation of the Bible (NET) The NET bible is a free online translation of the bible online. These people (scholars, preachers, etc...) have put together their own translation of the bible. While I think the translation itself is a decent translation, it is more along the lines of a dynamic translation of the bible than anything else. There is a great deal of Calvinistic influence in the writing of it, but the best part about the whole bible is the footnotes. Here they provide the information regarding many of the translating choices they made, the possible ways of translating and cultural/historical notes. While I wouldn’t rely totally on their translation or opinions, their work with the footnotes is invaluable. It is also amazing to see the notes these people made as they translated and it provides accountability, transparency, and an open-source version of the bible. Check them out at http://net.bible.org/ Closing Thoughts I want to encourage you as we begin this lesson to not worry too much about the version you use. So long as you are aware of some of the things going on in your translation, you’re fine. Most translations are going to give you an accurate representation of the important information. As we continue to study though, I would reccomend that you consider acquiring something from the literal column if you do not already have one (note, if you do not have a KJV... do not buy a KJV.) As always, take notes, cause I only have so much room in here.
Additional Reading:
Fee, Gordon D. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Zondervan, 2003.
Studying the Bible...
Different Translations Dispelling Wrong Assumptions There is not a single translation of the bible that is completely void of interpretation. There are certain things one must understand about language and translation. The nature of words, and what they mean make it a misunderstanding for us to think one word represents only one idea and one word in another language. The range of meaning which a word carries is called its semantic domain. For example “That is sick.” is a simple sentence. The semantic domain of the word “sick” is as follows: physically ill, mentally ill, mentally emotionally or morally deranged, corrupt, unsound, disgusted, or depending on your generation it can mean awesome or impressive. As you can see, this sentence can mean a number of things. Therefore, if I were translating, I would have to interpret the sentence and choose which meaning of “sick” was intended and then translate accordingly. Every translation has, by its nature, a degree of interpretation as to what the words are trying to say (which definition to choose) and how the argument is being organized grammatically to make a point. So, what we want to focus on is the degree to which the translator interprets for us, and their purpose/method in translating. Different kinds of Translations: The bible has been variously translated over the years. Many have categorized these types of translations in three groups. The first group is called the formal equivalent or literal style of translating. This group is primarily concerned with being as close to the original text in word-for-word translation as possible. They attempt to keep the grammatical structure, and wording as the authors intended. This might make them a little harder to read or understand right away, but makes them better for study and understanding complex arguments and ideas in scripture. Plus, you are mostly free from the influence of the translators, though some interpretation doubtlessly occurs, it is minimal.
reading the bible like never before
The second group is called the functional equivalent or the dynamic style of translating scripture. Though this translation is still concerned with being accurate, they are less concerned with accuracy to the actual grammar and vocabulary of the original text. Instead they try to exactly replicate the ideas of the original text using modern sentence construction and vocabulary. This group necessarily involves a little more interpretation in the course of translating, but it is minimal when compared to the next group. The third and final group is called the free translation or paraphrase style of translating the bible. This group of bible translations are not concerned with holding to the original grammar, vocabulary, or arrangement of the text. Their main concern is transmitting the main ideas and story line of the text to the reader. They are not as concerned with the vocabulary or grammar of the text, only its ideas. These types of translations have the greatest amount of interpretation, and though they are decent for regular reading, they are painfully lacking for serious study. They are essentially commentaries on what the author thinks the writer is saying. The Typical Translations and where they fit: NASB
NIV
NLT
ASB
TNIV
Message
ESV
NET
Amplified
(N)KJV
HCSB
The Living Bible
ESV
New Jerusalem Bible
JB Phillips Translation
(N)RSV
NIRV
CEV
literal
dynamic
paraphrase
This is a rough estimation for most translations of the bible and where they fit, it would be best shown along a continuum, but this is the best way I can represent it here. From here, I will briefly discuss some of the more popular translations of the bible, and elaborate on their pros and cons. New International Version of the Bible (NIV) Being one of the dynamic translations of the bible, we know that it is fairly accurate to the original vocabulary, grammatical structure, and meaning of the original greek and hebrew texts. The translators
Studying the Bible attempted to bring the bible into a modern, easy to understand version of the bible that was still deeply concerned with the original texts. They worked for hours on each passage trying to remain faithful to the original text and did a decent job. Even though they attempted to remain neutral in the process of translation there have been Calvinistic influences found within the text. One example of this is “sinful nature” found in place of the word “flesh” in Romans. Because they believe that humanity is born sinful, they take flesh to be indicative of our sinfulness, while this may be an acceptable way to look at what Paul is addressing, it demonstrates how translation often involves interpretation. (Note there are other areas of Calvinistic influence, but I would say most readers are not distracted by them.) Another point to make about the NIV is that is uses the rGNT manuscript for the New Testament. I believe that the NIV is a good translation of the bible to use for personal devotion and even study. It is reasonably close to the original languages, it is very readable, and it is a well rounded work. I think it is definitely a good bible for people to use who want something understandable, and aren’t too focused on wanting a literal translation for deep study. Authorized 1611 King James Version of the Bible One of the best known translations of the bible, the KJV is an interesting display of church culture, and history. This translation would fit decently well within the category of literal translations because of its attempt to stick close to the texts it was translated from, but there are a number of problems with this version of the bible. This is simply an obvious issue with it: the KJV is difficult if not impossible to understand in the modern society. Though it may be poetic and beautiful, the bible needs not be ornate, only understood. For many, the confusing words and sentence structure make it a relatively pointless translation of the bible. A second issue is that in the 400 years since the KJV was penned, we have discovered literally hundreds of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts which have better helped us understand the composition and wording of the original manuscripts. The KJV does not contain any of these texts. Thirdly, King James thought himself not only the King of England, but also a theologian. As such, there are places where he had changes made in order to “more adequately explain the text” or to “correct” things in the text which he felt were awry. (ex. 1 Jn 5:7) Because of the lack of information present to them at the time (which we now possess: various aramaic, greek, hebrew manuscripts, and the dead sea scrolls) the problems presented with a king putting his