-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Readablity
- Thread starter pcs1991
- Start date
Good question. I think it depends on your intent in reading. For beauty, its hard to beat the KJV. For understanding in today's language I like the NKJV, although there are many good modern versions that can be used. If your audience that you might be reading to are imited in their comprehension you might choose one that is written at their age level.
They are all good. They are all the Word of God.
Bro Tony
They are all good. They are all the Word of God.
Bro Tony
For pure readability I would have to say the Holman followed by maybe the NIV. It doesn't necessarily make either my favorite versions. I personally like the Holman better than the NIV and actually think it may be a little clearer. I use these when I am tired and just want to READ the Bible for enjoyment rather than indepth study. Or when I need some uplifting by the Lord's Word without having to translate in my head.
Readability, in my viewpoint, is being able to read and easily understand without having to think about the authors (or translators) true definition of each word. Also, it reflects a certain sentence structure that allows for easier reading and flow.
The NKJV, ESV and NASB are not as readable, but in my opinion they are better for indepth study because the translation is more literal.
On the other hand, the KJV is the least readable, because so many words have changed, often we think we understand a word when at the time of translation, it meant something entirely different. This is by no means to say that the KJV is not a good translation. Many of the bugs have been worked out of it during the revisions. It is just not the most "readable" version.
Readability, in my viewpoint, is being able to read and easily understand without having to think about the authors (or translators) true definition of each word. Also, it reflects a certain sentence structure that allows for easier reading and flow.
The NKJV, ESV and NASB are not as readable, but in my opinion they are better for indepth study because the translation is more literal.
On the other hand, the KJV is the least readable, because so many words have changed, often we think we understand a word when at the time of translation, it meant something entirely different. This is by no means to say that the KJV is not a good translation. Many of the bugs have been worked out of it during the revisions. It is just not the most "readable" version.
Readable? As in flow of sentences and vocabulary/grammatical syntax to help English readers?
The AV1611 was designed for public reading. Most of us grew up memorizing it, so we are nothing if not biased toward the lilt flow of that venerable translation.
The ASV1901 is probably the closest to the Greek, but is NOT very readable in English since it is tied to Greek construct (very different than English sentences). Its revision, the NASB, is still wooden and I don't like using it.
The NIV is the most "readable" but is so dyanmic in translation that I don't care for its "loose" handling of the Greek. It IS based on better Greek, but that doesn't give it an edge in my mind.
I'm not SBC, so never seen a "Holman". Was sent (by a BB member - thank you!) an ESV and it is more understandable than the archaic but still stiff and formal.
So I'd opt for the NKJV. By eliminating much of the archaisms and maintaining much of the lilt and flow that I enjoy, it is my choice for preaching today.
The AV1611 was designed for public reading. Most of us grew up memorizing it, so we are nothing if not biased toward the lilt flow of that venerable translation.
The ASV1901 is probably the closest to the Greek, but is NOT very readable in English since it is tied to Greek construct (very different than English sentences). Its revision, the NASB, is still wooden and I don't like using it.
The NIV is the most "readable" but is so dyanmic in translation that I don't care for its "loose" handling of the Greek. It IS based on better Greek, but that doesn't give it an edge in my mind.
I'm not SBC, so never seen a "Holman". Was sent (by a BB member - thank you!) an ESV and it is more understandable than the archaic but still stiff and formal.
So I'd opt for the NKJV. By eliminating much of the archaisms and maintaining much of the lilt and flow that I enjoy, it is my choice for preaching today.
There is ofcourse the translation called: Today's English Version also known as Good News for Modern Men a.k.a. the Good News bible
That one is especially translated to be easily readable by anybody who knows normal english and it is aimed at people who have no history of going to church.
The locals here don't like to mention it because what dr. B. doesn't like about the NIV is even more pronounced in the Today's English Version.
That one is especially translated to be easily readable by anybody who knows normal english and it is aimed at people who have no history of going to church.
The locals here don't like to mention it because what dr. B. doesn't like about the NIV is even more pronounced in the Today's English Version.
WallyGator
New Member
Considering ONLY readability, the LBT works best for me. When discipling new converts, I ask them to first read John and I John in LBT, then read it in NIV, then finally read in it AV1611. Continue this pattern. taking small bits of scipture and chewing well!
WallyGator
WallyGator
I think the NIV is far and away the most readable translation.
TEV's translators went on public record that they opposed salvation by faith, were sickened by the "slaughterhouse theology" of the blood, and did not bgelieve in inspiration. They went on to say they would try to translate/paraphrase these offensive areas OUT of TEV.
And they tried. I would not line my birdcage with that or NWT (New World Translation) by Jehovah's Witnesses that were deceptive and aimed at DESTROYING truth from the outset.
It may be that the only copy of the NKJV that I have is a gift Bible with such fine print that it is not very "readable".
This hasn't been brought up, but it is a real issue to me. They are not joking about the eyes starting to go above 40 years of age.
If somebody would like to donate a NKJV with larger print, I wouldn't turn it down.
This hasn't been brought up, but it is a real issue to me. They are not joking about the eyes starting to go above 40 years of age.
If somebody would like to donate a NKJV with larger print, I wouldn't turn it down.
WallyGator
New Member
Phillip,
You are right, it is the Oxford Edition.
Thanks
WallyGator
You are right, it is the Oxford Edition.
Thanks
WallyGator
My understanding is that the TEV was translated for those who have no spiritual background and who read at the sixth grade level.
Where have you read this or how did you gain this information? I have a TEV and have used in trying to explain scripture to kids. I never noticed this before. So I am curious.
Welcome to the club. It's all history from here. Ancient times are behind us. Remember when we thought 40 year old folks were old? Now we are them. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, and my kids think the moon walk was ANCIENT history. Happened sometime right after we discovered America, I think.
Dr Bob: "TEV's translators went on public record that they opposed salvation by faith, were sickened by the "slaughterhouse theology" of the blood, and did not believe in inspiration. They went on to say they would try to translate/ paraphrase these offensive areas OUT of TEV."
gb: "Where have you read this or how did you gain this information? I have a TEV and have used in trying to explain scripture to kids. I never noticed this before. So I am curious."
I can't vouch for all that Dr Bob said, but the TEV NT translator was Robert Bratcher of the American Bible Society (who was later dismissed by them for a remark he made to the SBC Christian Life Commission that "anyone who believes in inerrancy is a heretic").
Anyway, I heard Bratcher speak directly to the issue of why he rendered the "blood of Christ" as "death of Christ" during a lecture at Southwestern Seminary in the 70s. Bratcher specifically said in relation to a question on that point, "I translated it that way because I don't believe in a slaughterhouse religion." I was there; I heard it.
Since Bratcher's dismissal from the American Bible Society, the rendering of that phrase has been changed to "sacrificial death", apparently in response to the multitude of criticisms that had been leveled on that point since the TEV NT appeared in 1966.
gb: "Where have you read this or how did you gain this information? I have a TEV and have used in trying to explain scripture to kids. I never noticed this before. So I am curious."
I can't vouch for all that Dr Bob said, but the TEV NT translator was Robert Bratcher of the American Bible Society (who was later dismissed by them for a remark he made to the SBC Christian Life Commission that "anyone who believes in inerrancy is a heretic").
Anyway, I heard Bratcher speak directly to the issue of why he rendered the "blood of Christ" as "death of Christ" during a lecture at Southwestern Seminary in the 70s. Bratcher specifically said in relation to a question on that point, "I translated it that way because I don't believe in a slaughterhouse religion." I was there; I heard it.
Since Bratcher's dismissal from the American Bible Society, the rendering of that phrase has been changed to "sacrificial death", apparently in response to the multitude of criticisms that had been leveled on that point since the TEV NT appeared in 1966.