counsel on which Bible translation to use

[Theophilus73]

Hello brothers,

I'd like to ask counsel for a dilemma I'll be facing soon in regards to what Bible translation to use regularly (I use a few for study, but like to stick to one for daily reading and memorization).

First, here is some background:
Since I became a Christian in 2000 I used mostly the NKJV as my primary translation (at first mostly because the church I started attending used it).

After changing church a couple times I found myself in 2009 attending a church that used the ESV, so I gradually switched from the NKJV to it over the course of that year. In 2010 and 2011 I used the ESV as my primary translation, and that's when I started to notice the differences more, and started doing words studies to compare.
Regardless of the manuscripts base (TR/MT vs NU, that's another discussion), even for where the two translations have the same exact original language text (which is most of the Bible text), I think over all the NKJV translation is slightly (though not negligibly) more literal than the ESV (of course, there are verse exceptions here and there), from what I can gather when comparing them with the original languages (though I am not versed in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, I can look those up using various dictionaries online and in software). So I feel switching to the ESV would be settling for "second best" so to speak (in my opinion, I know most reformed people probably disagree).

Now the dilemma:
I have a young son and my wife and I wish to have more children soon. So in a few years we want to introduce them to Bible reading, as well as family devotions and memorization; well, should I use the NKJV (which I prefer) or the ESV (which they will hear at church and Sunday school)?

Which is less confusing (and less of a stumbling block) to a child, explain to them each time I believe a passage in the ESV needs to be clarified (or even corrected) by another Bible translation (which could cast doubt about the Word in their minds), or to explain why dad uses a different translation than our pastors and church body (which could cast doubt about our church leaders in their minds)? I guess a third option is to use the ESV and not mention any disagreement I have with it (at least not until they are in their late teens and may be more likely to understand things) - though I have to admit it would be VERY hard for me to bite my tongue in certain passages.

In light of this question, here is another one (sort of related):
One of the main differences between the ESV and the NKJV (or KJV) in the OT is the tense of verbs.

For example:
Psalm 18:1 (NKJV): "I will love you, O LORD, my strength".
Psalm 18:1 (ESV): "I love you, O LORD, my strength".

Often where the NKJV has a future tense, the ESV has a present tense. Can someone please shed light on this for me? I could not find on the internet any good information on why the difference and which is more accurate (compared to what the original recipients would understand).

Thank you brothers,
Emerson, Prov 15:122

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Hello brothers,

I'd like to ask counsel for a dilemma I'll be facing soon in regards to what Bible translation to use regularly (I use a few for study, but like to stick to one for daily reading and memorization).

First, here is some background:
Since I became a Christian in 2000 I used mostly the NKJV as my primary translation (at first mostly because the church I started attending used it).

After changing church a couple times I found myself in 2009 attending a church that used the ESV, so I gradually switched from the NKJV to it over the course of that year. In 2010 and 2011 I used the ESV as my primary translation, and that's when I started to notice the differences more, and started doing words studies to compare.
Regardless of the manuscripts base (TR/MT vs NU, that's another discussion), even for where the two translations have the same exact original language text (which is most of the Bible text), I think over all the NKJV translation is slightly (though not negligibly) more literal than the ESV (of course, there are verse exceptions here and there), from what I can gather when comparing them with the original languages (though I am not versed in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, I can look those up using various dictionaries online and in software). So I feel switching to the ESV would be settling for "second best" so to speak (in my opinion, I know most reformed people probably disagree).

Now the dilemma:
I have a young son and my wife and I wish to have more children soon. So in a few years we want to introduce them to Bible reading, as well as family devotions and memorization; well, should I use the NKJV (which I prefer) or the ESV (which they will hear at church and Sunday school)?

Which is less confusing (and less of a stumbling block) to a child, explain to them each time I believe a passage in the ESV needs to be clarified (or even corrected) by another Bible translation (which could cast doubt about the Word in their minds), or to explain why dad uses a different translation than our pastors and church body (which could cast doubt about our church leaders in their minds)? I guess a third option is to use the ESV and not mention any disagreement I have with it (at least not until they are in their late teens and may be more likely to understand things) - though I have to admit it would be VERY hard for me to bite my tongue in certain passages.

In light of this question, here is another one (sort of related):
One of the main differences between the ESV and the NKJV (or KJV) in the OT is the tense of verbs.

For example:
Psalm 18:1 (NKJV): "I will love you, O LORD, my strength".
Psalm 18:1 (ESV): "I love you, O LORD, my strength".

Often where the NKJV has a future tense, the ESV has a present tense. Can someone please shed light on this for me? I could not find on the internet any good information on why the difference and which is more accurate (compared to what the original recipients would understand).

Thank you brothers,
Emerson, Prov 15:122

From my research I think the NKJV is definitely more literal than the ESV. Honestly the NKJV is probably as literal as the NASB. I don't think it would be a big deal to use the NKJV. I don't see it being a huge stumbling block for your children but I could be way off and My main point is just saying that I believe the NKJV is more literal by far..

 

[TomVols]

The NASB is more literal than the ESV and based on better mss than NKJV. I'm not wild about the ESV but use it and HCSB also. I wish the ESV wasnt so beholden to the old RSV.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tom, you said, "The NASB is . . . based on better mss than NKJV." That's quite a claim, seeing as it is but another variation of the Critical Greek text! Are you prepared to defend the CT readings over against the TR's? That would be an unenviable task. Which is not to say the translation of the NASB is not decent, but we're talking about the Greek mss.

True, the OT readings underlying the NKJV are chosen somewhat eclectically, but with the NT they stick pretty closely to the TR

 

[Hamalas]

Without getting into a big discussion over the various manuscript traditions, I can say from experience that a family using different translations doesn't have to be a problem. My Dad (a PCA Pastor) tends to use the NASB while the rest of us use the ESV. In family worship this was often as much of a help as anything, as it allowed us to compare different translations and draw the best from each. You don't have to undermine your kids faith in the authority or authenticity of Scripture if you say things like, "I know the ESV says this here, but I think a better translation would be..." You're not claiming that one version isn't Scriptural, simply that the different versions make different translation choices and inevitably won't knock the ball out of the park every time. Just my

 

[Robert Truelove]

The NKJV is definitely more literal than the ESV. The ESV is also guilty of succumbing to the egalitarian takeover of the English language. I'm also with Steve in preferring the TR over the Critical Text. With the NKJV you get a much better Greek source AND extensive footnotes to see where it differs from the text underlying most modern translations as well as the Majority Text.

The biggest advantage of the NKJV is it is tied so closely to the English text of the KJV as a historic translation that it will be difficult for the publisher to produce a future edition that radically changes the nature of the text (like has happened with the NIV for example).

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

One of the things I like about the NKJV is the NT marginal notes that point out where the Nestle/UBS (NU) critical text and the Majority (MT) text differ from the TR.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

One of the things I like about the NKJV is the NT marginal notes that point out where the Nestle/UBS (NU) critical text and the Majority (MT) text differ from the TR.

The NKJV marginal notes are very good. Even if you are a CT guy the NKJV footnotes more then compensate for it's use of the TR(which i actually like)

 

[JimmyH]

I'm an old guy so I read the KJV and if I do memorize verses, that is the version I use. I also read the NIV, which I like very much for clarity, the NASB, and ESV. Our pastor preaches out of the NKJV and I bring it to church and to Bible study. I find it more comfortable to follow in the same translation during the sermon and readings.

As far as the children, and for yourself, read some history on the manuscripts, and the process of translation. It is not as cut and dried as it appears to someone not familiar with the history and the task of finding the meaning of the donor language and transferring that to the receptor language in its present form. Learning about that aspect, and explaining it to the young folks, can help in clearing up what may be confusing about differences in one version or another.

 

[TrustGzus]

My 15-year-old has 5 different translations on his shelf. He brings a different one to church than our pastor uses. The reason translations differ is primarily:

1) textual variants
2) translation philosophy (formal v functional)

Give your kids good examples of both 1&2 so they understand history and why things are the way they are and it should not bother them. It shouldn't weaken their trust, it should strengthen it.

 

[Jack K]

You know, whichever you choose, if you're respectful when pointing out differences it shouldn't be a problem. You won't be undermining your church.

Both the NKJV and the ESV are excellent translations made by top scholars. In many cases, differences in wording don't reflect different understandings of the text so much as different ideas as to what's the best way to express the meaning of that text in English. To use your example...

For example:
Psalm 18:1 (NKJV): "I will love you, O LORD, my strength".
Psalm 18:1 (ESV): "I love you, O LORD, my strength".

You said the NKJV was future tense. Well, I suspect from context that the NKJV is not meant to be understood as future tense (as in, "I will love you, Lord, down the road sometime") but rather as an ongoing statement of purpose ("my desire and practice is to love you, Lord"). The fact that you read it as future tense may actually mean that you misunderstand the text in the English in which it is rendered. Such a potential misunderstanding may be why the ESV chooses to render it without the word "will."

My point is that translators have to consider not only what a passage means and what English words most literally fit the original, but also how readers will understand (or might misunderstand) the English words they choose. In the case of Psalm 18:1, there are merits (and drawbacks) to both renderings. If you prefer a translation that's more "literal," realize that this often means it also requires more work and care to avoid misunderstandings. I think if you take such care you'll be fine even if your preferred translation differs from the one used at church—so long as you remain respectful of the decisions made in the other translation rather than scoffing at those decisions. In nearly every case, there have been good reasons for those decisions.

 

[Theophilus73]

Jack,
Good points, and I did not know the "will" in English verbs could mean something other than a future action (English is not my mother tongue), so thanks for that insight and now I can look up an English grammar and dig a bit more on the subject.

Also, thank you all others for your insight, great food for thought! I'll continue to pray and seek God's leading as well.

 

[VictorBravo]

Well, I suspect from context that the NKJV is not meant to be understood as future tense (as in, "I will love you, Lord, down the road sometime") but rather as an ongoing statement of purpose ("my desire and practice is to love you, Lord").

Right. The Hebrew verb there is in the qal imperfect tense. It's not easy for an English speaker to get the drift of that tense, but it means a continuous and uninterrupted action, and often is translated in the future tense.

I suppose the translator could have said, "I have loved, do love, and will love thee continuously....", but that is pretty clunky.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Youngs Literal has it "-I love Thee, O Jehovah, my strength."

 

[MW]

Technically, the future in English is "I shall." "I will" indicates determination.

 

[VictorBravo]

Technically, the future in English is "I shall." "I will" indicates determination.

Quite true! An excellent point regarding English of the KJV.

Except to an American it has almost become the exact opposite. Nobody teaches these things now, and in normal use "shall" has been relegated to legal documents indicating obligation, and even there it is disfavored.

I think you'd look long and hard to find anyone in the US who is aware that "I shall" and "he will" were the original plain future forms.

 

[MW]

I think you'd look long and hard to find anyone in the US who is aware that "I shall" and "he will" were the original plain future forms.

I have seen it used in the NASB and ESV, and to some degree in the NIV, so lack of awareness must be leading to misunderstanding.

 

[bookslover]

Emerson, I think you're over-thinking this. The NKJV and the ESV are both fine translations. I think your children will be comfortable with either one. Both are reliable and accurate. So, relax and go with the one you like best.

 

[psycheives]

Emerson, I recommend you and your family all go with the ESV because this will allow your children to memorize easier and follow along at church, and I believe clinging to the formal equivalence translation philosophy is a mistake.

A more "literal" translation is not necessarily preferable. In fact, I believe it is actually detrimental to seek too strong a literal/form-driven translation because it will likely sacrifice the accurate meaning of the original manuscripts, as the Psalms example demonstrated. Thus, I shy away from the most literal translations: like the NASB. What good is a Bible if you, your wife and children are all misunderstanding it because you're so concerned with the structure of the original languages, which you can't read or understand anyway? One quick comparison of Titus in the NASB vs NIV immediately demonstrated about 10 outdated words and impossible sentences that my proud NASB-loving Masters-degree-educated friend could not understand. So how could his children? If dad couldn't understand his Bible, of course the little ones could not.

People come under the impression that "formal equivalence" is desired over "meaning" because of the weaknesses of the paraphrase Bibles. However, I believe they miss the point that these paraphrases are poor not because they used the wrong translation philosophy, but simply because they are poor translations. I believe the BEST Bible will at least BALANCE meaning and form. Too much form, you will be too literal and the Bible will be incomprehensible. Too much meaning... well, really, there is no such thing. How can you go wrong with meaning if you actually capture the true meaning? You can't.

When you emphasize form too strongly, you give up meaning. There is no true reason, if we actually stick to the true meaning, that we should distort the English language into retaining the Greek/Hebrew form (thus losing meaning). Not knowing Greek/Hebrew syntax/language, readers would not "catch" or glean any benefit or understanding from retaining the Greek/Hebrew form. The Greek and Hebrew word-orders are different from English. How does retaining "backwards" word order help English readers? It doesn't!

That's like expecting Spanish readers to catch an English joke or slang. If you translate ultra-literally, the meaning of the joke will be lost.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

When you emphasize form too strongly, you give up meaning. There is no true reason, if we actually stick to the true meaning, that we should distort the English language into retaining the Greek/Hebrew form (thus losing meaning). Not knowing Greek/Hebrew syntax/language, readers would not "catch" or glean any benefit or understanding from retaining the Greek/Hebrew form. The Greek and Hebrew word-orders are different from English. How does retaining "backwards" word order help English readers? It doesn't!

That's like expecting Spanish readers to catch an English joke or slang. If you translate ultra-literally, the meaning of the joke will be lost.

Just because a translation is literal does not mean that the syntax has not be altered to account for differences in language. The ESV, which you have recommended, would be considered a literal translation. I find it odd that you begin by recommending the ESV, but then proceed to argue for a translation philosophy that would be much better represented by the NIV or NLT.

 

[joebonni63]

yeah I like all these translations but I feel the 1599 Geneva Bible from Tolle Lege Press I find it very exact and dead on. Also the ESV it's very easy on the understanding. There was a guy that put a very nasty review on CBD about the Geneva Bible really it was uncalled for he was saying that it's the bastardized version next to the 1560. This was based on Luke 17:36 most bibles don't have this verse but the 1599 does.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

When you emphasize form too strongly, you give up meaning. There is no true reason, if we actually stick to the true meaning, that we should distort the English language into retaining the Greek/Hebrew form (thus losing meaning). Not knowing Greek/Hebrew syntax/language, readers would not "catch" or glean any benefit or understanding from retaining the Greek/Hebrew form. The Greek and Hebrew word-orders are different from English. How does retaining "backwards" word order help English readers? It doesn't!

That's like expecting Spanish readers to catch an English joke or slang. If you translate ultra-literally, the meaning of the joke will be lost.

Just because a translation is literal does not mean that the syntax has not be altered to account for differences in language. The ESV, which you have recommended, would be considered a literal translation. I find it odd that you begin by recommending the ESV, but then proceed to argue for a translation philosophy that would be much better represented by the NIV or NLT.

I agree Bill. The ESV is fairly literal but all translations meet in the middle at many places. Word for word is really an inaccurate term unless your talking Young's literal Translation or a interlinear. That being said, I think the formal equivalence philosophy is much more desirable. Capturing the meaning is important but unfortunately much more "interpretation" goes into the dynamic equivalents. A lot of times to eliminate ambiguity they pick one meaning or the other. The Bible is an extremely old book and I think we just need to face this head on and realize many things are going to be difficult to understand and dig down and figure out context,meaning, ancient syntax/sayings, ect. I think way too many modern translations are trying to oversimplify the Bible which I think is more harmful then good. In my humble opinion the NKJV,ESV and the NASB are all very understandable modern formal equivalents(the KJV is great too but I understand it's language can be an issue)Some things may be hard to understand but we dig and study. I think children would be fine with any of these translations but of course they are not going to understand and grasp everything. I don't think any translation would enable them to do so. I have nothing against the NIV, I think it's decent, but I really don't find it much more readable then the ESV or the NKJV. And personally I have been studying the NASB a lot lately and I find it to be very readable and extremely understandable in many places. Idk, Brother I think you could choose one or the other to use mostly but why not use them both in yours and your families studies. I find using at least two translations (in my case KJV & NASB) to be extremely helpful and edifying.

 

[Theophilus73]

Richard,
Being an Engineer, so I do tend to over-analyze .
Emerson

 

[psycheives]

When you emphasize form too strongly, you give up meaning. There is no true reason, if we actually stick to the true meaning, that we should distort the English language into retaining the Greek/Hebrew form (thus losing meaning). Not knowing Greek/Hebrew syntax/language, readers would not "catch" or glean any benefit or understanding from retaining the Greek/Hebrew form. The Greek and Hebrew word-orders are different from English. How does retaining "backwards" word order help English readers? It doesn't!

That's like expecting Spanish readers to catch an English joke or slang. If you translate ultra-literally, the meaning of the joke will be lost.

Just because a translation is literal does not mean that the syntax has not be altered to account for differences in language. The ESV, which you have recommended, would be considered a literal translation. I find it odd that you begin by recommending the ESV, but then proceed to argue for a translation philosophy that would be much better represented by the NIV or NLT.

Bill, thanks for your input. I agree that most would consider the ESV "relatively literal" - because "literal" isn't a category so much as a scale with degrees of literalness. The NIV/NLT are also "literal" but "less literal." My point may have been lost in all those paragraphs, so thank you for this opportunity to try again to be clearer and show why my endorsement of the ESV makes sense considering my translation philosophy.

After learning a little Greek/Hebrew at seminary and reading up a little on translation philosophies, I have come to believe that the modern argument/hypothesis against "dynamic equivalence" and for "formal equivalence" is faulty. Every Bible translation uses BOTH translation philosophies, whether the translators have a personal preference for one or the other. Both philosophies are GOOD! Neither are bad. This modern hypothesis that pits one against the other makes no sense to me. It is good to have proper form (when the form helps with the meaning and original context) and it is good to sacrifice form where it would damage the meaning. My argument is against holding to the form at the expense of the meaning.

Thus, I believe Young's and NASB sacrifice too much meaning by clinging to the form at the expense of the meaning and outdated language.

I believe the issues with the NIV aren't with their translation philosophy (arguably claimed to be a balance of form/meaning) but with their poor translations themselves! They actually sacrificed meaning - rather than choosing meaning over form! So the NIV's issues are not due to lack of form or too much meaning. They are due to the over abundance of poor translations. Yet, many times, the NIV will render a more accurate translation (and meaning) than the NASB and ESV. Because it didn't sacrifice meaning for form in those cases. The translation philosophy is not at fault for poor translators who don't know their languages.

The benefit of the ESV is that it has been willing to sacrificed MORE form for MORE meaning (very similar to the NIV's translation philosophy). When translating Greek to English, it has chosen to aim for a more accurate/clearer "meaning" and chosen to eliminated unnecessary vagueness (caused by clinging to form/literalness) that would causes the loss of meaning.

For this reason, I appreciate the side-by-side comparisons in "One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal?" by Dave Brunn, a Bible translator. He shows many cases where the NIV provides the most accurate translation. Most accurate translation requires especially MEANING and secondarily FORM.

I believe part of the reason for the popularity of this "Pro-Form, Anti-Meaning" hypothesis is that books have been written by individuals that are not Bible Translators and don't know Greek or Hebrew, such as the popular book "The Word of God in English" by Mr. Leland Ryken. Ryken admits he doesn't know the languages, doesn't understand translation philosophy and isn't a translator but argues for "the more literal Bibles" with this faulty hypothesis and because of the beauty of poetry and style - he advocates the KJV for its beautiful language.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

When you emphasize form too strongly, you give up meaning. There is no true reason, if we actually stick to the true meaning, that we should distort the English language into retaining the Greek/Hebrew form (thus losing meaning). Not knowing Greek/Hebrew syntax/language, readers would not "catch" or glean any benefit or understanding from retaining the Greek/Hebrew form. The Greek and Hebrew word-orders are different from English. How does retaining "backwards" word order help English readers? It doesn't!

That's like expecting Spanish readers to catch an English joke or slang. If you translate ultra-literally, the meaning of the joke will be lost.

Just because a translation is literal does not mean that the syntax has not be altered to account for differences in language. The ESV, which you have recommended, would be considered a literal translation. I find it odd that you begin by recommending the ESV, but then proceed to argue for a translation philosophy that would be much better represented by the NIV or NLT.

Bill, thanks for your input. I agree that most would consider the ESV "relatively literal" - because "literal" isn't a category so much as a scale with degrees of literalness. The NIV/NLT are also "literal" but "less literal." My point may have been lost in all those paragraphs, so thank you for this opportunity to try again to be clearer and show why my endorsement of the ESV makes sense considering my translation philosophy.

After learning a little Greek/Hebrew at seminary and reading up a little on translation philosophies, I have come to believe that the modern argument/hypothesis against "dynamic equivalence" and for "formal equivalence" is faulty. Every Bible translation uses BOTH translation philosophies, whether the translators have a personal preference for one or the other. Both philosophies are GOOD! Neither are bad. This modern hypothesis that pits one against the other makes no sense to me. It is good to have proper form (when the form helps with the meaning and original context) and it is good to sacrifice form where it would damage the meaning. My argument is against holding to the form at the expense of the meaning.

Thus, I believe Young's and NASB sacrifice too much meaning by clinging to the form at the expense of the meaning and outdated language.

I believe the issues with the NIV aren't with their translation philosophy (arguably claimed to be a balance of form/meaning) but with their poor translations themselves! They actually sacrificed meaning - rather than choosing meaning over form! So the NIV's issues are not due to lack of form or too much meaning. They are due to the over abundance of poor translations. Yet, many times, the NIV will render a more accurate translation (and meaning) than the NASB and ESV. Because it didn't sacrifice meaning for form in those cases. The translation philosophy is not at fault for poor translators who don't know their languages.

The benefit of the ESV is that it has been willing to sacrificed MORE form for MORE meaning (very similar to the NIV's translation philosophy). When translating Greek to English, it has chosen to aim for a more accurate/clearer "meaning" and chosen to eliminated unnecessary vagueness (caused by clinging to form/literalness) that would causes the loss of meaning.

For this reason, I appreciate the side-by-side comparisons in "One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal?" by Dave Brunn, a Bible translator. He shows many cases where the NIV provides the most accurate translation. Most accurate translation requires especially MEANING and secondarily FORM.

I believe part of the reason for the popularity of this "Pro-Form, Anti-Meaning" hypothesis is that books have been written by individuals that are not Bible Translators and don't know Greek or Hebrew, such as the popular book "The Word of God in English" by Mr. Leland Ryken. Ryken admits he doesn't know the languages, doesn't understand translation philosophy and isn't a translator but argues for "the more literal Bibles" with this faulty hypothesis and because of the beauty of poetry and style - he advocates the KJV for its beautiful language.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would agree with you that being woodenly literal can often lead to a translation that is less clear. I also understand that all translations are of necessity "dynamic" to a degree. I was simply responding to your assertion regarding syntax. A simple consultation of an interlinear Bible will demonstrate that all translations, regardless of their degree of literalness, make changes to account for differences in syntax. My issue with some of the more "dynamic" translations, such as the NIV, is that they take this to a degree that is far beyond necessity and become overly interpretive in their translation choices. The "study" part of Bible study means that in order to achieve proper understanding, hard work is often necessary. While it certainly may seem easier to read a translation that attempts to do this hard work for us, we must keep in mind that the conclusions arrived at in these translations are often based merely on the opinion, however learned it may be, of the translators. I would prefer to have a translation that simply renders the original as literally as is practically possible, and then put in the work necessary to achieve understanding on my own, rather than simply relying on the judgment of the translators. Of course, not everyone agrees, which is why there are so many translations. At any rate, blessings in your continued studies.

 

[TrustGzus]

I remain unconvinced that the supposed interpretiveness in an NIV,e.g., matters in the long run. Most denominations came to exist when really all that was on the market was the KJV and maybe the Geneva.

Look at what Reformed guys use. Joel Beeke uses KJV, MacArthur NASB, many use ESV, Boice used NIV. Doesn't seem to matter. Arminians use a variety. Cessationists use all of those. Continuationists use all of those. Old earthers and young earthers.

For as much as the interpretive argument is made, I just don't see translations affecting it at all. People either exposit correctly and come to truth whether it's KJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV or what have you or if they want to believe some other doctrine, they will "find" it in whatever version you hand them.

One exception: NWT. Blatant twisting in that case.

 

[Theophilus73]

Joe,
In one way I agree with you, and here is why: most people do not deduct doctrine on their own, they "fall into" or choose a "camp" and adhere to that camp's doctrine (weather it is a written confession or an independent, more or less put together confession of faith). I've seen people known reformed people "murder" a text hermeneutically, but because they knew their doctrine they were able to overlook that.
The more one relies on confessions and written doctrine, the more one can rely on more paraphraisic translations.

Here is one simple example:

"The steps of a man are established by the Lord,
when he delights in his way;
24 though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong,
for the Lord upholds his hand." ESV

"The Lord makes firm the steps
of the one who delights in him;
24 though he may stumble, he will not fall,
for the Lord upholds him with his hand." (NIV)

According to the NIV, will a man who delights in the Lord ever fall? What does the original say? Food for thought...

 

[JimmyH]

Joe,
In one way I agree with you, and here is why: most people do not deduct doctrine on their own, they "fall into" or choose a "camp" and adhere to that camp's doctrine (weather it is a written confession or an independent, more or less put together confession of faith). I've seen people known reformed people "murder" a text hermeneutically, but because they knew their doctrine they were able to overlook that.
The more one relies on confessions and written doctrine, the more one can rely on more paraphraisic translations.

Here is one simple example:

"The steps of a man are established by the Lord,
when he delights in his way;
24 though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong,
for the Lord upholds his hand." ESV

"The Lord makes firm the steps
of the one who delights in him;
24 though he may stumble, he will not fall,
for the Lord upholds him with his hand." (NIV)

According to the NIV, will a man who delights in the Lord ever fall? What does the original say? Food for thought...

Psalm 37:23-24 in 'The Jewish Study Bible' translates ;

23 The steps of a man are made firm by the Lord,
when he delights in His way.
24 Though he stumbles, he does not fall down,
for the Lord gives him support.

I just got off of the phone with a friend who lived in Israel for 30 years, was at one time Orthodox, and speaks and reads Hebrew fluently. I asked him to read his Hebrew Kethuvim and translate it for me. He did, and it is very like the above quoted verse, in his translation of it. Here is his reading of verse 24 ;

Psalms 37:24
כי יפל לא יוטל, כי יהוה סומך ידו If he stumbles, he won't fall, because G-d supports his hand.

Add to that, one reason I prefer the NIV stands out in the juxtaposition of these verses. Who have you spoken to lately that would say, "he shall not be cast headlong," ? The ESV purposefully resembles the KJV in much of its phrasing. That is fine for those who are familiar with that, and may be preferable if that is the case. For plain everyday English, as it is spoken by the average person, the NIV is more representative. In my humble opinion.

 

[psycheives]

I remain unconvinced that the supposed interpretiveness in an NIV,e.g., matters in the long run. Most denominations came to exist when really all that was on the market was the KJV and maybe the Geneva.

Look at what Reformed guys use. Joel Beeke uses KJV, MacArthur NASB, many use ESV, Boice used NIV. Doesn't seem to matter. Arminians use a variety. Cessationists use all of those. Continuationists use all of those. Old earthers and young earthers.

For as much as the interpretive argument is made, I just don't see translations affecting it at all. People either exposit correctly and come to truth whether it's KJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV or what have you or if they want to believe some other doctrine, they will "find" it in whatever version you hand them.

One exception: NWT. Blatant twisting in that case.

Thank you brothers for the engaging and interesting conversation. Excellent point Joe and Emerson! I think you rightly point out that adults tend to follow someone else's theology through a church and so if they are plugged in, they won't have as much difficulty picking up any Bible when they are being directed by others.

But what about adults or children who cannot understand their own personal daily bible readings? I come from an area where most non-denominational evangelicals are not highly educated and they tend to take everything ultra literally. If you give them an NASB, they will tend to misunderstand or skip over all difficult parts. I did this when I was young with my KJV. Difficult reading leads to individuals giving up and putting their Bibles down. When I finally got an NIV, I felt like so many doors were opened. Now that I've advanced more, I use an ESV because it is more accurate and still uses today's English. True, many kids will go to their parents or pastor but other kids don't have believing parents. Besides, they will also attempt to read their bibles on their own. Since Emerson asked about himself and his children, I suggested the easier to comprehend Bible primarily for their benefit. Dad can understand a lot more, so it is them that I worry the most about. Hope something is helpful in my comments. Have a lovely evening!

 

[Logan]

I've appreciated this discussion, and translation methodology is something I've put a bit of thought into over the last couple of years, particularly with psalters. People talk about accuracy of the psalter or of a translation, but what you're looking for really determines whether you consider it "accurate" or not.

Sometimes, the criteria for accuracy seems to be as simple as that it contains a word for word translation (even if not necessarily in the same order).
Sometimes, "accuracy" seems to be that it translates the same Hebrew word into the same English word every time.
Sometimes, it even seems to be that it uses the same poetic form as the Hebrew (verses in Psalm 119 starting with the same letter, repeated words for emphasis, etc).

It makes me think: We do want to treat the translation carefully (it is sacred scripture, after all), but what other translation projects do we treat this way? When translating Augustine, Calvin, etc. do translators think the form is critical or the meaning? I really enjoy Rob Roy MacGregor's translations of Calvin's sermons, but he seems to focus on conveying meaning more than an exact equivalent for a specific word.

So when people say the 1650 psalter is the "most accurate", I think it does strongly depend on what you're looking for. Just makes me think.