Featured Your least favorite version?

Correction, that should be The Good News Bible.

 

Thanks....

 

A careful analysis of all 20 posts reveals a pattern, folks like word for word translation types for study, and do not like paraphrases such as the Living Bible.

 

Out of the ones I'm familiar with, The Message is probably the worst one. But I don't care enough to hate or dislike it.

 

And that version is not to be confused with the NLTse.

 

Not to put to fine a point on it, but if word for word translation types are at one end of the spectrum, then the NLT would be toward the other, more liberal end. Even more liberal than the NIV. People like accurate bibles for study, such as the NASB95.

 

Your use of the word "liberal" is entirely misplaced.

By the way, in an earlier post in this thread you acknowledged "imagine the number of souls it [NLT] has helped bring to Christ because they could understand it."

If on the left side of the ledger the NASU was at number 10 -- the NLTse would probably be pegged at about # 65. The Message? Around 130, which would be to the left of the Cotton Patch Version --150.
The last two shouldn't even be included on a Bible translation graph.

The GNT would probably be around 90. The best range would be somewhere between 20-80. The NIV would be smack dab in the middle at about 50.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I used liberal as defined in the dictionary. Here is the definition "not literal, loose and approximate." Thus worthless for study.

Note that all the "least favorite versions" listed are more liberal than the word for word type versions.

 

Lets review:

Least favorite:

RSV post #2 & 19
Good News and/or Living Bible posts # 3, 5, 8 and 20.
ISV post #4
NWT posts #6 & 8
Clear Word post #8
NIV, Message, Cotton Patch post # 8
Message and Living Bible post # 17

One word for word translation type, KJV was listed in post #13.

And to balance that out all the DE versions were listed as least favorite in post # 12.

 

The 1977 edition of the Nas is considered to be more literal than the 1995 revision....

Also more "wooden", and harder for some to read and understand with clarity, due to how it strove to maintain Greek construction over in English when possible....

 

Yeshua1, you have posted yet another false and misleading post without a shred of evidence. NASB95 is far far less wooden than the 1977 version. Give just two verses where what you claimed is supported. You will not do it, because you make this stuff up.

 

Here is an example of a supposedly "wooden" rendering from Luke 20:2.
2 and they spoke, saying to Him, “Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority?” The bolded part was said to be wooden. Now here is the same verse from the NIV
“Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?

Note the difference, the NIV simply deleted the introductory phrases. That is not less wooden, that is less accurate.

Now lets look at two other "word for word type versions"
and said, saying to him, “Tell us, by what authority you are doing these things, or who is the one who gave you this authority? LEB So the NASB is no more "wooden" than the LEB

and spoke to Him, saying, “Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” NKJV Here in this particular verse you can make the case the NASB is less wooden than the NKJV. *(Who is the one who verses who is he who. )

 

That was my main point, that hte 1977 was more wooden to read and understand, due to them being more careful to try to keep the Greek verbage when going into English!

 

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and they were coming and were being baptized. NASB77

22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
23 John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized—NASB95

Here the NASB95 reads more like the NIV than the NASB77. Score another point for the NASB95.

 

Yes I see I misread your post. I agree the NASB77 is more wooden than the NASB95.

 

I see. You use the dictionary to define a word having nothing to do with Bible translation.

 

Interesting. If a given version reads more like the NIV Van gives it credit.

 

When reading Luke 20:2 one must note what the preceding verse says.
"One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news,
the chief priests and the teachers of the law,together with the elders, came up to him.

Context is key. It's rather magical Van.

 

Three posts from Mr Rippon. First he claims he does not know that loose and approximate is the dictionary definition of liberal when used of translation. We can agree, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Then he thinks it is ok to remove scripture here, because a similar thing can be found elsewhere. So much to the inspired word being honored with accuracy in translation.

 

Yes, I do not know that. The word liberal as found in a dictionary has no bearing on translational methods.

Besides, translations are indeed approximations --none are exact. And a case can be made that the more for-oriented ones are sometimes the least accurate.

Your rickety canoe is about to fall into icy waters. You intentionally misrepresent others on a regular basis Van. Naughty, naughty.