Featured Best 5 Translations ?

Well, Jason was wrong right off the bat. He said regarding the CSB :
"It is also unique in being the first translation to use contractions, such as in John 3:10."

No, Jason. The NLT was doing that long before the CSB. If anything the NLT influenced the CSB and other translations to use contractions.

The NLT and NET translations should have been included as among the most accurate translations. The KJV and NKJV should have been dropped.

 

The first thing I notice wen I see the CSB rendering of John 3:10 is that it omits the Definite Article. I don't really care whether a Bible version has 'don't' or 'do not,' but it should translate what's there.
John 3:10, CSB. 'Are you a teacher of Israel, and don't know these things?'
John 3:10, NKJV. 'Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?'
The Definite Article is present in the original, and leaving it out changes the meaning. Nicodemus is not just one of many teachers in Israel; he is the foremost one, the main man.

As well as the NKJV, the ESV and the NASB (1995) have the Definite Article. It's omission in the CSB makes me wonder if it is really a Formal Equivalence translation.

 

Do not vs don’t?

I fail to find the contradiction


Sorry

 

We do not agree.

He numbered them.
1. CBS
2. ESV
3. KJV/NKJV
4. NASB
5. NIV

I own editions of each. I use the KJV as my number one Bible.
Of the 5, the one I would generally recomend is the NKJV.

They each have their issues.

I regard the NASB to be generally better than the CSB, ESV or the NIV.
The current NIV is bad.

 

@38718 will no doubt answer for himself, but for me, it is the attempt to be 'Gender Neutral,' particularly in changing singulars for plurals that render the new NIV unfit for purpose IMO.

 

.

The NIV is now even less a literal translation of God's word.

1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” . . ."

Versus, KJV, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. . . ."


NASB, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. . . ."

See Proverhs 6:29, "So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent."

 

I'm not sure why this dude is considered expert enough to pontificate on this subject. I'm sure he's a great guy, but here is his biographical data: "Jason Soroski is a homeschool dad and member of the worship team at matthias lot church in St. Charles, MO. He spends his free time hanging out with his family, exploring new places, and writing about the experiences. Connect on Facebook or at JasonSoroski.net.

Note:
1. He doesn't seem to know that dynamic and functional equivalence are the same thing.
2. He writes, "Based on what we now know of how difficult translation is...." Really? Bible translators have always known how difficult translation is! Ask Ulphilas or Jerome or Carey when you get to Heaven how tough the task was!
3. He writes about formal equivalence, "Think of this reading Shakespeare as Shakespeare wrote it." Huh? That doesn't even make sense! You have to read Shakespeare as he wrote it if you study him, but this is not equivalent to translation. (I took 6 credits of Shakespeare in college.) It's still English, yet translation takes place between two languages.

I'd better stop before I get carried away.

P.S. I checked out his website at The Way I See It, and it says he has an M.Ed. from Missouri Baptist U. Nope. Still not qualified to write articles about Bible translation methodology. Maybe he should come here on the BB and let us fill him in....

 

Do you wonder if the Geneva is really a Formal Equivalence translation?

 

Geneva, ". . . Iesus answered, & saide vnto him, Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things? . . ."
KJV, ". . . Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? . . ."
ASV, ". . . Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things? . . ."

The literal translation "the" is the better translation here.

 

I shall ask the writers of the Geneva when next I see them. It may be that translators had a different view of the importance of the Definite Article in the 16th and 17th Centuries. I don't know. And nor do you.
What I do know is that there is a Definite Article before 'teacher' and IMHO it ought to be included in a translation.

 

I number them :
1. NIV
2. NLT
3. NET
4. CSB
5. NASB

The current NIV is very good. It's going on 13 years this November.

 

The NIV is not gender neutral. Neither is the NLT or CSB.

Changing singulars into plurals is an English grammatical matter. It's not a theological issue.

 

The way the NIV renders it is quite like the way the CSB, CEB, ESV, MOUNCE, NCV, NET and NLT all handle it.

 

Hello Rippon old chap. You and I have form on this, though we agree on most other matters. You read your Bible versions and be blessed by them. I shall read mine.
All I will say is that when a translation changes 'he' into 'them' when the word of God says 'he,' that to me is a theological issue. A lot of the time it doesn't alter the meaning hugely, but that is not the issue. I have previously shown three places where it does make a difference, but I know you disagree and I'm not going to get into a long exchange over it.

 

We seem not to agree here.
They along with the KJV translate a verb as noun in Luke 2:2. Only of the OP the NKJV correctly keeps it as a verb in translating. ηγεμονευοντος

 

Does not make an intterpertation in place of a good literal translation correct.

 

"...the reader who is bent upon a literal rendering...should always be on his guard against its strong tendency to mislead." R.F. Weymouth.