. . . If indeed all of these translations are true, and the modern ones can be understood, why does anyone need all of them? Would not one understandable translation be sufficient? Why read several? Does the message change between translations? Does the story change? If there is a change, then it can not be that they are all true, right?
I am confused by this.
I knew only the KJV prior to my salvation a year ago. Since then, because of my difficulty with Old English, I picked up a New American Version. From what I have seen, they appear to agree (but since Old English and I are not friends, I cannot gaurantee it). Do I need another version now?
As others have said--very good questions.
And as others have said--Bible translation and publishing is a business for both the translators and the publishers.
. . .
Many years ago, I served on a library committee at the local church I was attending. The committee's purpose was to set up a church library. A librarian, who was not a member of our church but was helping us process the books (call numbers, catalog, spine identification, etc.), asked about the history of our church. One of our committee members--in all honesty and sincerity--said our particular church was formed because the founders believed other churches followed inerrant doctrine. At this, I thought the librarian would end up rolling about on the church floor with laughter. Finally, she came to her senses and replied, "Sir, I thought that is how all churches got started."
. . .
My opinion is
we do not need all those translations. However, I do think a person needs two formal equivalence translations (word for word) and one dynamic equivalence translation (thought for thought).
There are many articles and charts posted on the Internet describing these two translation approaches. Sometimes there are attempts made to place specific translations on a continuum (e.g., formal on the left, dynamic on the right). And some folks distinguish between a dynamic equivalence translation and a paraphrase like
The Message or the original
Living Bible. Here is a Wikipedia link that presents a simple description of translation differences:
Dynamic and formal equivalence
For my current reading, I have chosen two formal equivalence translations and one dynamic equivalence translation.
Formal Equivalence Translations
King James Bible (KJB)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Dynamic Equivalence Translation
New International Version 1984 (NIV 1984)
. . .
Modern translations have become so numerous that the publishers have changed the naming scheme for new translations.
For example, two of the successors to the Revised Standard Version go by the names of New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and English Standard Version (ESV). And please understand, these two versions are very different from each other, though they both stem from the original Revised Standard Version. For example, the NRSV adopts gender inclusive language while attempting to minimize doctrinal bias. On the other hand, the ESV adheres to traditional gender language and incorporates "reformed" doctrinal bias to some degree.
The translation team and publishers of the New International Version and the New Living Translation (NLT) have followed a different naming strategy. First, the New Living Translation is a revision of the original Living Translation (LT). As the years rolled by, the publisher made revisions to the text but kept the name of New Living Translation. Thus, to see which NLT you are reading, you have to look for the copyright date on the copyright page at the beginning of the Bible. There have been three different NLT versions over the last twenty years.
The New International Version is in the process of switching naming strategies. First there was the NIV 1979 and its revision the NIV 1984. Then the translation committee switched to adopting different names for different revisions, such as Today's New International Version (TNIV, 2005). And on November 1 of this year, they released the text of the NIV 2011 online at BibleGateway.Com. There is even a scholar who has published online the differences in the various NIV translations. The NIV translation committee and publisher state they are going to discontinue all previous versions and simply call the new version NIV. Here again, when you see a NIV product, be sure to check the copyright page because there are changes. For example, the NIV 1984 follows traditional gender language and reads similar to the King James Bible in places. On the other hand, the NIV 2011 adopts gender inclusive language and make a bigger break with the KJB.
. . .
Had enough? Well, I certainly have. And that is why I refuse to follow the NIV translators and publishers down their translation mill. Today the hubbub is all about gender language and meaningful contemporary words. Tomorrow, the advertised "new and improved" will promote something else.
If I sound a bit cynical, that is because I am a retired businessman and I know "new and improved" and "repackaging" for what it is--just another way to make a buck. Not that I blame them all that much. For decades that is how I made my living: hawking the "new and improved" this or that.
Of course there are also denominational and/or doctrinal reasons for many modern translations. Here the focus seems to make a specific doctrine stand out at the expense of denying other doctrinal nuances (interpretations) in the same text.
Yada, yada, yada.
. . .
For yourself, choose the translation that speaks to you--the translation you feel God speaking directly to you as you read it. Another forum participant used the phrase "window." That is what I suggest you look for. Which specific translation has the most windows for you, windows where you hear God speaking directly to you.
One final thought, I also suggest you use the translation most frequently used by the church you attend. If in doubt, ask the pastor.
. . .
More than you wanted to hear, I am sure.
...Bob
