In Praise of Translations

Wrangler

Well-known member
I just wanted to create a space where we share, not so much our love of the Bible, per se, but our enjoying a particular translation.

So far, I've read 4 translations cover to cover.
  1. CEV Challenge
  2. NLT Every Man's Bible
  3. NRSV Cultural
  4. CJB
Sadly, the CJB did not have a study Bible version until 2 months after I bought mine. All the others above are Study Bibles. I also read parts of the NIV, ESV and VOICE.

I love modern thought translations for easy reading. The CEV is spectacular and if not for it, I may never have begun my journey in reading God's word. Literal translations are far too clunky; I lose patience.

And then, worst of all is any translation with James in the title. KJV-only folks kept me from reading God's word for decades. Such blatant IDOLATRY! I consider it unreadable, putting aside its many errors. Not only are the words archaic, the sentence structure is not the way we speak today. It's like reading a work from Yoda, "Hope right, you are." Still, certain verses I am locked in my mind are from this translation, such as 'prayers of a righteous man availeth much."
 
I'm ashamed to say, I use to be a translation snob, and look down on less literal versions.

I've come to see the real purpose and beauty of making a translation that sounds natural, so the message is less distracted; in fact I've made my own paraphrastic translations of several books of the Bible. I think the NLT and NIV are quite good, and I'm not a big fan of the ESV because it is so boring, tame and unoriginal. I am glad though that modern versions like the LSB have come around to using the divine name.

My least favorite version, and I'm bit of an aficionado on versions, is the KJV. In fact I pretty much agree with your assessments. But it can be eloquent at times, and I love to think how much Tyndale would enjoy people using his work while getting no credit for it. And he borrowed heavily from the Wycliffe translators.

My favorite version is the NJB and its predecessor the JB, although they do have some flaws; they are the most natural sounding English I've encountered in most places. Trouble is they are British English and sometimes pick inferior variations. But I've edited my own version of the NJB fixing these things.

Good topic!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's relative the GNB, is also quite readable.
I remember when I got started reading the Bible. My wife gave me a beautiful devotional Bible. Every day it contained 5 sections to read.
  1. OT
  2. Psalm
  3. Proverb
  4. NT
  5. Modern Application of one of the principles from above
After a week or so, I realized the translation was too unpleasant to read, it had James in the title, NKJV. So, I began reading the same verses in Biblegateway to see which translation I tended to like.

It was a difficult exercise because, depending on the verse, I preferred one translation over another. Although I don't recall the GNB, certain translations caught my eye with greater frequency.
 
After a week or so, I realized the translation was too unpleasant to read, it had James in the title, NKJV. So, I began reading the same verses in Biblegateway to see which translation I tended to like.

I use the NKJV in quoting because it tends to be fairly accurate and less controversial.

You will hate Rotherham's Emphasized Bible but it is one of the most literal English versions for those interested in that.
 
I'm not a big fan of the ESV because it is so boring, tame and unoriginal.
LOL Sometimes I prefer it to other translations. Particularly

You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13 ESV


I used this to do my 1st Bible study with my granddaughter.

Rarely do I take my Bible to church. There was a time I began to and realized study Bibles are not good during church as you don't have time to read anything but the Scripture verse. So, I actually bought a beautiful Compact "Large Print" ESV for such times. I don't like reading less than 10 font.

1693058295590.png
 
I just wanted to create a space where we share, not so much our love of the Bible, per se, but our enjoying a particular translation.

So far, I've read 4 translations cover to cover.
  1. CEV Challenge
  2. NLT Every Man's Bible
  3. NRSV Cultural
  4. CJB
Sadly, the CJB did not have a study Bible version until 2 months after I bought mine. All the others above are Study Bibles. I also read parts of the NIV, ESV and VOICE.

I love modern thought translations for easy reading. The CEV is spectacular and if not for it, I may never have begun my journey in reading God's word. Literal translations are far too clunky; I lose patience.
All translations are of an equal footing to me. I mostly go to the NKJV out of habit more than anything else. I consult the Koine Greek LXX and NT texts whenever I need clarification on what was translated to English.
And then, worst of all is any translation with James in the title. KJV-only folks kept me from reading God's word for decades. Such blatant IDOLATRY! I consider it unreadable, putting aside its many errors. Not only are the words archaic, the sentence structure is not the way we speak today. It's like reading a work from Yoda, "Hope right, you are." Still, certain verses I am locked in my mind are from this translation, such as 'prayers of a righteous man availeth much."
What don't you like about the NKJV?
 
What don't you like about the NKJV?

See OP section below.

Not only are the words archaic, the sentence structure is not the way we speak today. It's like reading a work from Yoda, "Hope right, you are."
In reading the introduction to the VOICE translation, they explained their translation process. Not only did they consult theologians but marketing advertisers and stage performers in concisely expressing ideas today with emotional power. We are even more concise in how we talk today than when the NIV came out in the 1960's, let alone a translation written in Middle English.

True, in some places they expanded from the literal words, to bridge the gap that likely exists in the modern reader. (This is depicted in italics font to distinguish from the actual translated word of God.) For instance:

The mission given to me by the Anointed One is not about baptism, but about preaching good news. The point is not to impress others by spinning an eloquent, intellectual argument; that type of rhetorical showboating would only nullify the cross of the Anointed.
1 COR 1:17

But in most cases, brevity is the soul of wit. Archaic sentence structures take away from the modern flow of information. Replacing archaic words still leaves you with archaic sentence structures that are clunky by today's 30 second commercial means of communicating. This is vital to reach today's audience. KJV-only folks wrongly believe changing archaic words solve the problem of readability. It does not. There are many KJV translation errors IF one can get past the language barrier. In short, any translation with James in the title is the worst translation available in English today. Why not read translations that are much better in every way?

From a historical perspective, the KJV is the most important book ever written in the English language. After 500 years, it's had its time in the sun. It's now obsolete.

At one job I worked at I was asked to give a presentation to the Board of Directors. My boss worked with me in several meetings, helping me condense 6 months of work into a 5-minute, 299 second presentation. My 1st few rehearsals were closer to 7 minutes. Completely unacceptable! How much more so is clunky, archaic sentence structures in 66 books?
 
See OP section below.


In reading the introduction to the VOICE translation, they explained their translation process. Not only did they consult theologians but marketing advertisers and stage performers in concisely expressing ideas today with emotional power. We are even more concise in how we talk today than when the NIV came out in the 1960's, let alone a translation written in Middle English.

True, in some places they expanded from the literal words, to bridge the gap that likely exists in the modern reader. (This is depicted in italics font to distinguish from the actual translated word of God.) For instance:

The mission given to me by the Anointed One is not about baptism, but about preaching good news. The point is not to impress others by spinning an eloquent, intellectual argument; that type of rhetorical showboating would only nullify the cross of the Anointed.
1 COR 1:17

But in most cases, brevity is the soul of wit. Archaic sentence structures take away from the modern flow of information. Replacing archaic words still leaves you with archaic sentence structures that are clunky by today's 30 second commercial means of communicating. This is vital to reach today's audience. KJV-only folks wrongly believe changing archaic words solve the problem of readability. It does not. There are many KJV translation errors IF one can get past the language barrier. In short, any translation with James in the title is the worst translation available in English today. Why not read translations that are much better in every way?

From a historical perspective, the KJV is the most important book ever written in the English language. After 500 years, it's had its time in the sun. It's now obsolete.

At one job I worked at I was asked to give a presentation to the Board of Directors. My boss worked with me in several meetings, helping me condense 6 months of work into a 5-minute, 299 second presentation. My 1st few rehearsals were closer to 7 minutes. Completely unacceptable! How much more so is clunky, archaic sentence structures in 66 books?
I don't much like the KJV either. Its OT translation is based off of the Masoretic text which I am not fond of. The Masoretes had the audacity to rip out all of the OT text that was written in the Greek era. Therefore, I usually go to the Brenton OT version for OT reading. It's a tad old but not as old as the KJV.
 
I would say just be aware that a paraphrase is like a commentary on Scripture really, to try to give an opinion on what the author meant. There is still place for more a literal version and studying the originals where you can. Also I never found the NKJV that hard to read, I rather quite like it, but it does have a bad translation here and there like all versions.

If anyone is interested in giving me some feedback on my paraphrase of Galatians, throw me a line at [email protected].
 
I would say just be aware that a paraphrase is
"Paraphrase" is a pejorative term. The proper category is "thought" translation.

Whereas, a "literal" translation, attempts to translate each word (then awkwardly adjust for rules of the translated language), a "thought" translation translates whole sentences an even paragraphs. For instance in Numbers, the CEV makes a list of who from each tribe rather than tediously repeat the same sentence structure, only changing the tribe and quantity.

20-46 The number of men from each tribe who were at least 20 years old and strong enough to fight in Israel's army was as follows:
46,500 from Reuben, the oldest son of Jacob,[a]
59,300 from Simeon,
45,650 from Gad,
74,600 from Judah,
54,400 from Issachar,
57,400 from Zebulun,
40,500 from Ephraim,
32,200 from Manasseh,
35,400 from Benjamin,
62,700 from Dan,
41,500 from Asher,
53,400 from Naphtali.

The total number of men registered by Moses, Aaron, and the twelve leaders was 603,550.
Numbers 1:20-46 (CEV)


Combining 27 tedious verses into one very readable and precise verse. Awesome. A+
 
I don't much like the KJV either. Its OT translation is based off of the Masoretic text which I am not fond of. The Masoretes had the audacity to rip out all of the OT text that was written in the Greek era. Therefore, I usually go to the Brenton OT version for OT reading. It's a tad old but not as old as the KJV.
I never heard of Brenton. Did you say that is a manuscript or a translation?

One thing about me; I know I do not like language as a study. Hated to study my native tongue, let alone foreign languages.

I read earlier this week a peculiar thing about the Catholic Church. It could have involved Wycliffe, but anyway the RCC translated the original text of the NT from Greek to Latin precisely because the common man did not speak it. Thereby the could control the people by what the priests said was God's word. After 100's of years, when someone translated it back to Greek, the RCC burned the guy alive.

Not too Christ like.

I am a student of history and it always pains me to hear people destroying historical items, such as the Masoretes had the audacity to rip out all of the OT text that was written in the Greek era.
 
I am a student of history and it always pains me to hear people destroying historical items, such as the Masoretes had the audacity to rip out all of the OT text that was written in the Greek era.

This is not quite accurate. If you really want to be a "student" of history, that's not how it went down, lol.

Whatever the condition of the Hebrew Text the Masoretes got, had already experienced some alterations, but they did a great job preserving it. It was definitely not "ripping out OT text."
 
This is not quite accurate. If you really want to be a "student" of history, that's not how it went down, lol.

Whatever the condition of the Hebrew Text the Masoretes got, had already experienced some alterations, but they did a great job preserving it. It was definitely not "ripping out OT text."
I’m just quoting what our friend @synergy wrote. Sounds like a separate thread. Would you mind starting one on that topic?
 
I never heard of Brenton. Did you say that is a manuscript or a translation?

One thing about me; I know I do not like language as a study. Hated to study my native tongue, let alone foreign languages.

I read earlier this week a peculiar thing about the Catholic Church. It could have involved Wycliffe, but anyway the RCC translated the original text of the NT from Greek to Latin precisely because the common man did not speak it. Thereby the could control the people by what the priests said was God's word. After 100's of years, when someone translated it back to Greek, the RCC burned the guy alive.

Not too Christ like.

I am a student of history and it always pains me to hear people destroying historical items, such as the Masoretes had the audacity to rip out all of the OT text that was written in the Greek era.
@dizerner is correct in that there were previous Jews who ripped out the Greek-era OT text from their Bible. The Masoretes were certainly accomplices to that crime and perpetrated other crimes against the OT. They certainly were masters of OT crimes.
 
I don't much like the KJV either. Its OT translation is based off of the Masoretic text which I am not fond of. The Masoretes had the audacity to rip out all of the OT text that was written in the Greek era. Therefore, I usually go to the Brenton OT version for OT reading. It's a tad old but not as old as the KJV.
They probably needed to be ripped out by the rabbis and sages. The Masoretic Text is the gold standard for the OT. and that's likely why they were discarded. I'm not fan of any KJV because the Jewishness of the Gospel is stripped out.
 
They probably needed to be ripped out by the rabbis and sages. The Masoretic Text is the gold standard for the OT. and that's likely why they were discarded. I'm not fan of any KJV because the Jewishness of the Gospel is stripped out.
Your anti-Gentile racism is glaringly obvious here. Do you want to go as far as demanding the ethnic cleansing of Gentiles from the regions in and around Israel as @jeremiah1five is crusading for?
 
Back
Top Bottom