Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Translations: Which one is best?

posted by Jesus Creed Admin

I got a request from an e-mailer to blog on translations. This is the first one of such posts.

There
are a number of good translations available, and there are advocates
for each one, and they use a variety of reasons for why they are
advocates for one over another. I think there is a quick and generally
useful question to ask, and the answer to that question can determine
which translation to use. But before that, a good book, like Gordon Fee, Mark Strauss is a great investment: How to Choose A Translation for All Its Worth
.

The question is this: “What is my purpose in reading the Bible?”


If
I want to do careful study of the Bible in English, even down to the
point of diagramming sentences, then specific translations will be
better; if I want to choose a Bible that will be good for reading the
Bible in large chunks, then I would choose another; if I want a Bible
that is good for public reading, then yet another. So, the question
“What is my purpose?” is very important and can usually settle the
question.

So, let me answer this question with translations that are best for specific questions.

1. If you want to study the Bible technically, you want a more literal translation

KJV, ASV (1901), NASB, RSV and NRSV.

2. If you want to read the Bible in larger chunks, and so want a readable, smooth translation:

NIV and TNIV, Living Bible, New Living Translation

3. If you want a Bible that is really good for public reading:

KJV, NRSV, NIV and TNIV, NLT; in England many use the NEB

4. If you want a Bible that is sensitive to gender inclusivity:

NRSV, TNIV

Now, you may ask this question of me: “Which do you prefer?” The answer is the same, “It depends on my purpose.”

Having
said that, for eleven years I have carried the NRSV to class (along
with the JPS Tanakh, which has Hebrew and the JPS English translation).  The last three years I chose to carry the TNIV, the Today’s NIV
translation. Why? Because I support the attempt to make the Bible
readable for as many as possible and no more offensive than it needs to
be. I think the notes on the Christ vs. Messiah and the “adoption to
sonship” issue are overcooked notes, but I still think this is the best
and most readable translation we have today for a classroom setting.
And I really like the new TNIV Thinline Bible: Burgandy/Pecan European Leather (Today’s New International Version)
, with two-color (maroon and
brown) leather is a handsome thing to carry. (Now, if all publishers would just
jettison the idea that the words of Jesus need to be in red.)



Advertisement
Comments read comments(51)
post a comment
Glenn

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:45 am


No mention of the ESV?



report abuse
 

Colin

posted November 17, 2008 at 1:10 am


I go between my NRSV (New Oxford Annonated Bible) and my TNIV. The TNIV I use I received at the Rollin’ Gospel Revival with Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette, it is the Books of the Bible version without verses and chapters to improve readability to be more like an actual book. For readability it is unbeatable. I have also been looking at the Green Bible for one I can easily carry around with me easily.



report abuse
 

EricW

posted November 17, 2008 at 1:11 am


The Voice is an interesting new translation (NT only so far) from Thomas Nelson. Translated by a combination of Biblical scholars, literary/literature types, and Emergent Christians. Blog is at http://www.hearthevoice.com/home with a free downloadable PDF file of The Book (i.e., the Gospel) of John so you can see for yourself what The Voice is like. I agree with some others that it may be the most readable and engaging translation I’ve seen, and it is in some ways the first truly “new” Bible translation in a long time.



report abuse
 

Daniel S

posted November 17, 2008 at 2:25 am


Scot, very timely post – thank you. This has caused me a lot of frustration over the past year.
Also, no mention of ESV?



report abuse
 

angusj

posted November 17, 2008 at 4:42 am


I personally think the NLT (second edition) is streets ahead of other translations. Its language is very contemporary without being colloquial and it really brings the Bible to life. For Bible study I usually compare several translations but typically find the NLT to be as good or better than other translations. My old NIV and ESV Bibles are now gathering dust because I’d rather buy someone a new NLT than give them these other translations. However, I can’t quite bring myself to throw them out yet.



report abuse
 

Ted M. Gossard

posted November 17, 2008 at 5:02 am


I love this post and discussion, though the older I get the less I care about which Bible translation people use- as Billy Graham is once to have said, The best Bible translation is the one that people/you use.
I prefer the TNIV and the NRSV. I like what I’ve seen of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I think the TNIV strangely enough is both more literal overall than the NIV, but also clearer and closer to the NLT than the NIV, while revisions of the NLT have made it sound more like the TNIV. I’m disappointed because of the misinformation and misunderstanding which accompanied the critiques of the TNIV and makes it impossible to even find it in Christian stores in the south who don’t carry it. But am glad the NLT is doing so well, since on gender matters it at least does the same as the TNIV, and overall probably more (though I think the TNIV does well, and doesn’t overdo that, as the NRSV probably does at some places).
We’re blessed with so many great translations, like the NASB, ESV, etc. I just go online anymore, to Bible gateway to compare translations, and a good NRSV website as well (and the TNIV website I regularly link on my blog).
For me tradition is important as well as getting it out clearly. But I certainly like the variety. And Eric, thanks for bringing up, The Voice. I just downloaded John’s gospel, and was looking at it. Interesting. And a part of me would go back to the NLT (which I used for awhile, when it looked as if we’d be stuck with the NIV forever, and I enjoyed using it), but I still find it freer than I like, though certainly improved in its revisions.
Just my dime’s worth.



report abuse
 

Luke

posted November 17, 2008 at 6:29 am


Feel like chiming in, though i’ve been coming here for a year and never commented. Just wanted to mention The Message which has been nothing short of life-changing for me. I understand the risks of having this as ones main translation, but as Scot said, different translations work better for different contexts. For me The Message has opened up the huge story of Scripture and enabled me to engage with the voice behind the text in ways i couldn’t with other translations. It’s helped me simply to read and feel part of the stories, which is what Peterson aimed for. I now find myself going back to more popular translations with a fresh energy.



report abuse
 

Jim Martin

posted November 17, 2008 at 6:47 am


For the purpose of reading, I probably use the NIV more than any other translation. I also use the NIV in preaching/teaching, primarily because it is the translation that most people in our church use.
For the purpose of study, I probably use the NRSV and the ESV more than any other translations. I often use Gateway to compare a variety of translations.
(By the way, I have enjoyed reading “The Renovare’s Spiritual Formation Bible” NRSV– editors Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Walter Brueggemann, and Eugene Peterson)



report abuse
 

Jim Martin

posted November 17, 2008 at 6:54 am


I use the NIV most of the time in preaching/teaching. I do this primarily because it is the translation which most people in our church have with them. The NIV is also the translation that I read from more than any other.
I also use the NRSV and the ESV when I study. I have found both of these translations to be particularly helpful. I also use Gateway to compare a variety of translations.
By the way, I have found “The Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible” to be very useful in reading and reflection. (editors–Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Walter Brueggemann, and Eugene Peterson)



report abuse
 

Rick

posted November 17, 2008 at 7:58 am


NASB is my preference, but do adjust for certain situations.
I am interested in seeing the ESV, and like others who have already commented, am wondering why it was not listed.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted November 17, 2008 at 8:03 am


Several have asked why no “ESV”. Honestly, I’ve never looked at it. I carry a TNIV or the NRSV to classes — and I use the JPS Hebrew-English text along with the Greek NT. That’s why it’s not in the listing, but it would probably be in #1 and #3. It is not gender inclusive and I prefer that in most of my settings.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted November 17, 2008 at 8:23 am


I use the Greek and Hebrew for study and with that the NSAB. For everyday use I use the NIV. You may cover this in another entry, but what study Bible would you use?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted November 17, 2008 at 8:25 am


Mike,
I consult Study Bibles at times. I wrote the Matthew notes for the NLT Study Bible so I’m biased!



report abuse
 

MatthewS

posted November 17, 2008 at 9:46 am


I have found the NET Bible helpful. I like the translation notes that are included.
http://net.bible.org/bible.php



report abuse
 

Jonathan

posted November 17, 2008 at 9:58 am


The main translation I use is the NIV. To me, it seems to have a good balance between dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. I use it for regular reading and teaching, although I prefer the NLT for public reading. I use the KJV for studying. I also like to review texts from many others though.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted November 17, 2008 at 10:37 am


The Revised English Bible (REB) is the successor to the New English Bible (NEB) and resolved some of the quirks of the NEB. Many in the UK and USA regard the REB as one of the best for public reading.
My current search is for an NRSV printed for continuous private reading: on non-ghosting quality paper, in a single column, with type large as that in a typical novel or nonfiction hardcover, with nothing but the NRSV text and translation-related footnotes. I don’t think that exists, but perhaps some day it will.
I remember a beautifully printed NIV edition that had all these qualities and was bound in excellent genuine leather. Wonder where that went! I hope I gave it away and didn’t just lose it.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted November 17, 2008 at 10:44 am


My daily driver is an ESV but mostly because it’s printed in single columns (one of the few). Note to bible publishers, it may be more expensive to print but there is a market for single column bibles.



report abuse
 

Tyler (Man of Depravity)

posted November 17, 2008 at 10:55 am


I’m a big fan of the new ESV study Bible. The translation has a lot of similarities to other “literal” translations and provides great study bible material.



report abuse
 

Paul Day

posted November 17, 2008 at 11:20 am


For help in choosing a translation I highly recommend David Dewey, “A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions” (IVP 2004). Bruce Metzger, “The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions” (Baker 2001) is an excellent overview of translation issues. Leland Ryken, “The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation” (Crossway 2002) offers a conservative perspective. (Ryken was a consultant for the ESV, also published by Crossway.) Mark Strauss, “Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy” (IVP 1998) presents an overview of issues in inclusive language versions.
___One correction: The ESV is at least partially inclusive — more so than the NIV, not so much as the TNIV. The difference is that the ESV strives to maintain 3rd person singular forms in translation (e.g., “one’), where many recent versions resort to 3rd person plurals (“they” or “those”). Such shifts may have theological implications, as in the use of OT passages in the NT to refer to Christ (e.g., Hebrews 2:6-8 cit. Psalm 8:4-6)
____I concur in your basic approach to use a “formal equivalent” version for study, and a “functional equivalent” version for more extensive reading. For public reading I usually use the pew Bible or local preference, although I vary widely to use the version which best gets a particular passage. “The Message” can be very effective, used sparingly, for a fresh look at a familiar passage. The “CEV” pays close attention to the clarity of meaning in how a passage sounds when it is read aloud.
____My personal preferences, in order, are the ESV, TNIV and NRSV. (I grew up with the RSV, which may explain my choices.)However, I own about three dozen English versions and use and enjoy them all. Klyne Snodgrass and Fred Holmgren stressed the importance of going to the Greek and Hebrew for sermon and study preparation, which I have kept up in over 30 years of ministry.
____A final word from Barclay Newman, former chief translation officer for the American Bible Society, who worked on the “Good News Bible” and chaired the “Contemporary English Version” translation committee:__When asked which translation to choose, Barcley replied, “Choose the translation that sings to your soul.” Amen.



report abuse
 

John

posted November 17, 2008 at 11:36 am


I’m going to assume there is some bias against the ESV going on here since it was not mentioned at all while all of its siblings and parents were mentioned (NASB, NRSV, RSV, ASV, etc.).
It is very interesting that the NRSV was suggested as a literal translation for studying the Bible closely when even its translators said the editorial board butchered their final work . I mean they even neutered Proverbs which was clearly written to “my son”.
Hebrew and Greek writing of the time was patriarchal. If you want to do careful, close study, then you need a translation that reflects that–not one that tries to hide it.
The NRSV is a good translation and reads beautifully, but trying to gain an understanding of history and detecting nuance with it is not a good idea.



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted November 17, 2008 at 11:39 am


Well, John, I admitted in #11 that I haven’t looked at it so I’m not sure it is bias as much as it is an inability to say something I know by way of study. Plenty have spoken up for the ESV here.



report abuse
 

Mark Baker-Wright

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:07 pm


This post has gotten me thinking about the various translations I’ve used in the past (the reflections can be found at the URL above). There’s definitely room for disagreement on what interpretive decisions are the best ones, but I appreciate Scot’s emphasis on “purpose” for reading the Bible. If a more “literal” translation fails to communicate to the reader *because* it is so literal, then that translation isn’t as good (for that reader) as a less literal one.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:13 pm


Scot, you mention the NEB, but what about its revisions, the Revised English Bible, which is less idiosyncratic? It is very readable, and its formulations often give a fresh take. Yet, it never seems to have caught on in the US. I wonder why.____Also not mentioned is the Catholic New American Bible. I understand the OT is undergoing a (needed) revision, but some NT scholars I respect such as Christopher Bryan (an Anglican) say good things about its NT.



report abuse
 

Peggy

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm


I tend to start any study out with my Hebrew/Greek Key Word Study Bible (NIV), and then usually bring in The Message and NASV and NLT (which I have, dramatized, on CD called “Bible Alive”) and REB.
But when I want to read for pleasure, I have another choice….
Don’t anyone flame me about this (practice time for good Jesus Creed civility), but I have found that one “purpose” that is difficult for those who are newer Christians (or less familiar with the Bible’s various genre) is to actually read through an entire book in one sitting, much less read through the entire Bible is a relatively short period of time. And there is one out there that has been my pleasure to read for over 17 years now: The Reader’s Digest Bible (condensed from the RSV; General Editor: Bruce Metzger).
For those inclined to be offended, I offer a repeat of Billy Graham already mentioned: the best version is the one that is actually read … and this most precious book is not an easy read for most.
The original version I bought when it first came out in 1990 — but I ran across the Illustrated Version maybe five years ago, and it is nothing short of a work of art — literally! Oh, my….
Anyway, it is a restful experience for me to pick it up and read through entire sections (the books of History, for example) without chapter divisions or titles or verse numbers to distract. It is especially pleasant to read through the entire NT in one sitting — how often does that get accomplished?
The point of reading this versions is NOT STUDY, but to step back and see the grand forest every now and again … rather than picking through the trees and leaves and ground cover looking for clues to proper interpretation.
I have had the pleasure of having folks return to me overwhelmed to have been able to read through entire books that have thwarted them many times in the past … and once they get through it one time, then can go back in their “full” version and read it successfully.
This is a great gift to many of those we serve who do not have the experience to persevere in the midst of the challenges the biblical genre bring. It is, however, out of print … but I have been successful in finding used copies at Amazon.com.
It is a worthy addition to my three shelves of translations. And another reminder that we are so fortunate to have this variety … when so many people groups do not even have a portion of scripture available in their heart language. (My cousin is a Wycliffe OT translator….)
Shalom, really….



report abuse
 

Rebeccat

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:44 pm


It’s funny, I still love the NAB from back in my Catholic days. It’s the first bible I read all the way through. I do a good amount of word studies (looking at the language, that is. Scot’s habit of looking at a word throughout scriptures is pretty new to me) and am absolutely addicted to online resources which allow you to look at several translations at once. I find that the NAB’s translations are generally pretty darn good. I also love the notes; they are unobtrusive, scholarly and point the way toward an understanding of scripture which isn’t threatened by contradicting evidence or potential errors. Plus they are light on theology which makes it easier to read the Word with “new eyes” rather than being told what to think about a particular passage (why I have a hard time with the NIV). I haven’t been Catholic for quite a while, but the NAB is still my bible of choice. Heck – they even get the Junia translation in Romans 16 right – how bad can it be?



report abuse
 

Brandon Rhodes

posted November 17, 2008 at 12:54 pm


And for devotional reading, don’t forget “The Books of the Bible” de-versified formatting of the TNIV. This change in formatting has impacted time in the Bible more than any difference in translation ever has.
I’m just eager to see others, like the ESV and NRSV, follow suit and soon publish de-versified, single-column formats free of section headers. Short of reading in the original languages, it’s letting me read the Bible as it was meant to be read.



report abuse
 

Jared

posted November 17, 2008 at 2:15 pm


Scot, I am curious to what you think of the ESV. I recently had it suggested to me by a friend and picked it up and am enjoying it very much. I have not done any research in Greek or Hebrew so I cannot tell if the translation is good or not, but it seems to be pretty fair in comparison to the other translations that I use as well. Thanks for your post.



report abuse
 

Nick

posted November 17, 2008 at 2:23 pm


I like the different take on this question, I’ll have to remember that. Only one thought, quite a lot of biblical scholars I’ve come across wouldn’t recommend the KJV as I gathered it was considered to be a fairly unaccurate translation (not including for example the New World butchering) partly due to it’s age…



report abuse
 

Mark Baker-Wright

posted November 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm


Nick,
The KJV isn’t all that bad, really. It’s just that we’ve gotten more (and better) manuscript evidence in the centuries (particularly the last one) since the KJV was created. Given the materials they had to work with, the KJV is remarkably accurate. But they simply didn’t have access to the resources we do today.



report abuse
 

Kathy Khang

posted November 17, 2008 at 2:40 pm


When I’m sitting down to prep or do a manuscript study I print up the text in NRSV…and then if I’m in a group setting I try to sit next to someone who knows Hebrew and Greek! I cherish my paperback version of the TNIV that was purchased by a friend who was traveling in England. You couldn’t find any copies of the TNIV here in the states, so that piqued my interest all the more. I’ve recently started reading and carrying the TNIV, but I do miss the notes and scribbles in my NIV. Also, props to “The Message” as a modern translation/interpretation.



report abuse
 

RentBBL

posted November 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm


If I may add one: For a certain unitarian sect, NWT would be their choice, because it serves their purpose of reading the Bible well ;-)
Every translation has the translator’s ideology, obvious or hidden. There is even one for the feminists, which reads ‘God the father and mother’, something like that. Or one for the homosexuals, etc.
As to TNIV, I bought one (N.T.) with maroon colored (fake leather?) cover (not palm size). The book does not keep itself open you need almost two hands! It makes reading very difficult. I hated it and gave up. I check TNIV on e-Sword program. The worst one I have seen with such poor accessibility; just getting inside is difficult. Why not just plain paper back package like Good News Bible?
I wish GNB come in N.T. only version. I had OT part ripped out to make easy to carry and handle with N.T. only. As to translation, it is a little further than a paraphrase on a scale of literalness of translations.
We have serious problem of definition here. NLT is fine as a PARAPHRASE.
On the one hand, MSG (Eugene’s packaging of Mono-Sodium-Glutamate) is, yes, his own interpretation from mushy theology and spirituality, but NOT TRANSLATION; it is a total REWRITE (probably poorer than Eugene’s actual sermons, I believe). It is not a translation, neither a paraphrase. Masquerading as a translation, it sells like a translation, is often included in parallel bible translations, and is often heard from the preachers quoting from it like a bible. [In that sense, it seems like a Da Vinci style deception by the author of ‘Da Vinci Code’, who says his work is a fiction, but he tells he believes it!]



report abuse
 

Hannah C.

posted November 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm


I too am curious as to what you think of the ESV.
As for the NLT, it is most certainly a translation, though a dynamic equivalence one. The paraphrase is The Living Bible, which, from what I have learned, was so popular that the people who produced it decided to do an actual Bible translation with similar language but not a paraphrase.
The Message is a paraphrase. Whether it is of any value I’m not sure. I certainly wouldn’t read it for my regular Bible at any point, though I have known of some who do…



report abuse
 

qb

posted November 17, 2008 at 6:51 pm


This blogging site (BeliefNet) is *terrible*. I just tried to post a reply of moderate length (4 paragraphs only), and it gave me a “Text was entered incorrectly” error. When I went back to find out what was the matter, everything I had typed was irrecoverably lost. Not a great loss in the grand scheme of things, of course, but annoying nonetheless.
Anyway…trying again.
Peterson’s theology is “mushy?” Oy, veh.
How about thinking of a continuum between paraphrase and translation rather than the bias toward a binary classification scheme that is raising its head here?
It’s remarkable what exegetical ground can be covered reasonably well by mere, unwashed laity if we just ensure that we have 5 or 6 translations and/or paraphrases handy at all times.
_The Message_ actually contributes a great deal to activities (both group and solo) that comport well with Dr. McKnight?s earlier blog series on student-centered teaching and Ken Bain?s What the Best College Teachers Do: it raises questions that require critical thinking and synthesis as a community of learners, and it serves that function across the spectrum of hermeneutical, exegetical, and pastoral matters. It also faces the ?blue parakeets? squarely and fearlessly, as does Peterson in all of his commentaries and meditations.
The fact that The Message arose in a pastoral context (see Peterson?s account of its origins in his adults? Galatians class in his Eat This Book) is argument enough to include it from time to time rather than dismissing it out of hand.
qb



report abuse
 

Wayne Leman

posted November 17, 2008 at 7:26 pm


2. If you want to read the Bible in larger chunks, and so want a readable, smooth translation:
NIV and TNIV, Living Bible, New Living Translation

And to read the Bible even *better* in larger chunks, we can go to a format offered by the guys with project. I wish that each English Bible version would be available in this new format, but it’s good currently with the TNIV.



report abuse
 

Wayne Leman

posted November 17, 2008 at 7:30 pm


Sorry about the formatting in my preceding message. Here is a link to Glenn Paauw’s message on Beliefnet.com about why they made the Books of the Bible Format:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Bible/Why-We-Deversified-the-Bible.aspx



report abuse
 

Chaplain Mike

posted November 17, 2008 at 8:03 pm


Scot, I noted that you carry a JPS Tanakh with you. I wish a Bible publisher would offer a Bible that has the OT portion in Tanakh order. In my study and teaching, I happen to think that the order of books in the Hebrew canon is significant in understanding the meaning of the text. Scot, are you aware of anyone who has considered doing this?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted November 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm


Mike #36,
I know of none … and it does matter at some levels.



report abuse
 

Glenn Paauw

posted November 17, 2008 at 8:52 pm


Scot & Mike, the de-versified Bible that Wayne wrote about has re-ordered the First Testament books along the lines of the Hebrew Bible. Of course, Hebrew Bible lists reveal various orders within the Prophets and the Writings sections. The Books of The Bible (IBS) presents the Covenant History (Gen-Kings), the Prophets (chronological order) and the Writings (grouped by literary type).



report abuse
 

David Jones

posted November 18, 2008 at 3:14 am


Scot, I am surprised that you did not even mention the English Standard Version, especially since it is a descendant of the RSV and the step-brother of the NRSV, which you do mention. Was that intentional or a slip? Are you down on the ESV? It is becoming a bigger and bigger piece of the “Bible market.”



report abuse
 

Bryon

posted November 18, 2008 at 10:06 am


Scot,
The Voice was mentioned in an early post but you didn’t really touch on it. It probably got lost in all the posts regarding the ESV. I never knew it had such a following! Anyway… do you have any experience with The Voice? I’m now reading it devotionally and I love it. We tried using it in a Small Group setting, however, and it’s horrible for public reading.



report abuse
 

Richard Clark

posted November 18, 2008 at 10:19 am


I enjoy the New Jerusalem Version of the Bible for the Old Testament, for the simple reason it’s one of the few versions to translate God’s name as “Yahweh” in its text.



report abuse
 

Charlie

posted November 18, 2008 at 11:25 am


I personally prefer the NLT for my everyday use. I am amazed at how many times our pastor, while teaching from the NASB, has had to correct it’s translation of a word only to find that the preferred word was already in the NLT. For digging deeper I’ll turn to the NASB. As for the ESV it’s no doubt a fine, literal leaning translation. However, you can say the same for the NASB or NKJV. In addition, IMO the ESV is no more “readable” than the others. In other words, what’s the big deal??



report abuse
 

Gavin

posted November 18, 2008 at 11:36 am


Why no reference to either the NKJV or the ESV?



report abuse
 

Scot McKnight

posted November 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm


Byron,
Thanks for the question … I did see The Voice mentioned above and said, “Well, what to say.” I have a copy; I have only looked it for a minute or so; I had a student in the office the other day who is looking at “additions” to the Bible, including Bible verses and Notes and additional words… and I gave it to her to examine. That’s all I can say.



report abuse
 

Terry

posted November 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm


I am glad to see this post. Being a pastor and a part of a fellowship of churches that overall feels certain that reasonably inspired translation mostly stopped with King James — while at the same time being NIV+ myself — I appreciate the fair consideration. I too am one who is thankful for the great blessing of a great many great translations.



report abuse
 

Bryon

posted November 18, 2008 at 7:51 pm


Scot,
Thanks for the follow-up. I find the additions quite interesting. So far I think they are helpful. It was a little unnerving at first to see them in there. As I’ve read it though, I think it is just a little more towards the paraphrase side of the continuum and I appreciate that they’re honest about it by italicizing their additions. I’d love to hear what your student thinks after their review.



report abuse
 

John Muehlhausen

posted March 7, 2009 at 3:59 pm


Scot and all… please join me in an attempt to supplement the NRSV reader notes!
I think such a project could be very valuable. When I read any given translation, I wonder what relevant information I might be missing from other translation options. This is perfect material for notes!
http://nrsvnotes.pbwiki.com/



report abuse
 

Jay Davis

posted April 9, 2009 at 9:19 am


Would or do you use NLT or / and TNIV for preaching, teaching and classes?
If you were a pastor what would your preaching translation be?



report abuse
 

Pingback: Which Bible translation is best? - Text Messages

Jane Maire

posted August 5, 2013 at 10:28 am


I resonate with what you have said, Scott, however It leaves me with the question…
What style would you adopt to translate the Bible into a language for the very first time, one whose people know nothing about the God of Jesus Christ? Probably a people who are, or have been till recently, mostly illiterate?
It makes me realize that we are never satisfied! The more you have, the more you need! (I’m excluding from that statement the fact that translations need to be redone because languages are always evolving.) Jane



report abuse
 

ewbsxfphb

posted September 16, 2014 at 5:44 am


you’ll find an insurance deductible for the medications indeed we paid back the entire value to be able to EpiPen junior. many of us known as few pharmacy and located Costco to make the best rates. I often known as the Costco’s to work out to whom seasoned the Epi with the latest expiry consort with (it could be any of us don’t utilize it, we’re able to wait alittle the specific longest at refill recommended). And in case it is detrimental within these capitals, its somewhat rather more serious internal to the west meaning, A largely used slum enclosed by hanging sewage that do consumes a half distance (kilometer) the long term peninsula coastline Liberia’s cash injection. free defecation is an issue. consume water has always been carted in within wheelbarrows, and people count on a nearby industry for their cuisine, but what we would not become familiar with upward a few weels ago was that the narwhal’s snaggletooth is covered with 10 million sensory problems endings. it is not a weapon maybe a as well as way or a fire casino poker, As witout a doubt responded. it sensory appendage good at details you are just now starting to recognize, probably it will be someone town’s whose your body definitely seems to be made of plastic, families can use somehow gyrate those way to having five with all the fucking techniques spinning more or less middle coupled with side. they won’t hesitate to make a claim in an exceedingly boisterous audio that it’s too easy, That be mindful put your hips engrossed and you will be ok. it is usually right up to organize rocks at chore, (new york stock exchange: FGP $20.83) is known as a gas supplier for surgical treatments plus end users in every 50 advises. an quarterly submitting judge because of 50 pennies concerning present has been around effect more than 16 months. the contemporary shares get definitely is 9%. to be able to, clothes staying in this housing in Grove town, pa, You are with out in this article to make use of the retail possibilities in the neighborhood. But there are also properly coming hills gone over in incomparable vegetation at Moraine express theme park, or maybe hand made heavy metal giftware along the Wendell aug forge at Grove community. individual resort’s gulf pennsylvania residence additional provides a easy access to Amish the country.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.