A few years ago I got into a discussion on the Internet about Bible versions. One man who worked as a missionary in India insisted that it was possible to perfectly translate something from English to Hindi then have someone else translate it back into English without changing a word from the original. All I can guess is that he didn’t speak Hindi and was easily fooled by his translators.
There is no direct correspondence from one language to another. Some are closer than others, like Portuguese to Spanish. The best a translator can hope to do is communicate the same idea in the target language as that in the original.
That’s where the tension between literal translation (“word by word”) and dynamic equivalence (“thought by thought”) comes in to play. In Bible translations, we have everything from Young’s Literal Translation to paraphrases like the Living Bible or the Message.
Here are a few of my thoughts on selecting a version:
- For the majority of us, it really shouldn’t come down to choosing just one version, at least for serious study. We should use multiple versions, especially with the number of versions available online today.
- For devotional reading, you need a version you can understand. I recommend switching versions now and again to avoid letting one translation’s rendering shape our interpretation.
- Whatever version you choose, go for one with good footnotes that show you when the translators have chosen an interpretive translation over a literal one.
What are some of the prime considerations that you would add?
P.S.—For some fun, check out the Lost in Translation web page.
{Photo by Andrew Beierle, sxc.hu}
An insightful and balanced approach to scripture, Tim. Now for the tough question… Was Jonah really swallowed by a fish, or is this a illustration of God’s redemption and salvation?
Tim: Yes. :-)
I don’t have a problem with Jonah being a literal story. People focus on the fish, but the story of the plant in chapter 4 defies the natural course of biology as well. God did a lot of miraculous stuff with the prophets to make a point.
At least you didn’t ask about Cain’s wife…
Tim … my search for a translation is simple… it’s got to be readable. If it’s not in a common language that I use then I’m not going to use it on a regular basis.
I agree with you. I read through scripture each year just to keep familiar with the story. This year I am reading out of the Jewish Publication Society’s translation of the OT. I will be reading a new version of the NT a little later. Next year I will go back to my main translation, the TNIV, to again keep familiar. This makes for interesting readings at times.
Trey, I agree… to a point. I find that some of the paraphrases around work well as commentaries, but not for Bible study. In making things simple, these versions do too much interpretation for my taste.
I enjoy things like The Message or Phillips’ New Testament for devotional reading, but wouldn’t use them in my personal study nor as the main text for public teaching.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
What I look for in the different versions, any version should be kept in context.
KJV – Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
KJV – Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
KJV – Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
It is plainly stated in Mat 12:16, 17,18 that Isa 42:1 is speaking of Jesus.
KJV – Mt: 12:16: And charged them that they should not make him known:
17: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
18: Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
NLT – Mat 15:24 Then he said to the woman, “I was sent only to help the people of Israel–God’s lost sheep–not the Gentiles.”
NLT – Isa 11:10 In that day the heir to David’s throne* will be a banner of salvation to all the world. The nations will rally to him, for the land where he lives will be a glorious place.
NLT – Isa 42:1 “Look at my servant, whom I strengthen. He is my chosen one, and I am pleased with him. I have put my Spirit upon him. He will reveal justice to the nations.
Look at NLT – Mat 15:24 and, Isa 42:1 and tell me they say the same thing.
Does it not follow, that Jesus would not have said what the NLT, and others said he said.
Him knowing full well, he was sent to also judge the Gentiles.
There are flaws in all versions of the bible , this is an example of where they all miss the point. In my opinion. I believe Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the new testament was written in Greek, and translated into English. How could there be any mistakes?
It is obvious that the author of the NLT is of the Premillennialist persuasion . So you will get that opinion when reading it. .
Laymond,
My NLT doesn’t have “not the Gentiles.” in Matthew 15:24 NLT says, “Then Jesus said to the woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel.”
It seems like the point you are making is based on The Living Bible Paraphrased which says, “Then he said to the woman, ‘I was sent to help the Jews – the lost sheep of Israel – not the Gentiles.”
There is no “author of the NLT.” It is translation by multiple people that goes through committee. So the one who is of the Premill perspective may well be Taylor, not the translation committee of the NLT.
I like this discussion of Bible translations. You have made excellent points.
Last week, I bought a Bible for my 6 year old son. I chose the NIV because it is a fairly readable and accurate translation. It’s still a little advanced for his reading skills, but it will not be long before he can read it on his own. And he will probably be reading it for years to come (as I am).
In choosing a dynamic equivilant translation, I am not dismissing the more literal word-for-word translations. I love the ESV, NKJV, and the NASB too. And I love the Message paraphrase. It’s just that the NIV seemed like a good version for my son to grow up reading. It is not terribly difficult to read, and it has staying power. I expect it to be around throughout his lifetime.
Laymond and Matt, I do think there has been some confusion as to what version I discussed in the last post. BibleGateway.com has the NLT if you want to consult it. The NLT is not a paraphrase, so it is inaccurate to talk about “the author” of that translation. You can check http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/ and be prepared to discuss that version here in a few days.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Terry, I agree with your reasoning. The NIrV is another good starter’s Bible, and the transition from it to the NIV is pretty smooth.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Yeah, I know Matt, they revise it every few years. Mine is the 1996 version. It reads “New Living Translation” on the back.
It started as “The living Bible” and it began to be revised in 1989, took seven years, ninety scholars worked on it, but it started with, Taylor. a Premillennialist , my copy has “not the gentiles” written right in there.
a critical review of the NLT
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html
Lamond,
Good observation. Thanks for the information. That is interesting. It started with Taylor but it was entirely reworked. As I review a number of passages I just don’t see the NLT as a mirror image of the LB-P by any stretch of the imagination. That is like saying all cars are Model T’s or that we should view cars today through the lens of the Model T…they are so vastly different that it wouldn’t make much sense.
I don’t have my NLT in front of me to see what year it is.
Apparently there is a VAST difference between the 1996 NLT (which was much like the Living Bible) and the 2004 NLT. Thanks to both you guys for pointing that out.
Wikipedia has an informative article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation
I preached a sermon this past week from the NIV. A lady who was visiting San Francisco from a small town in Virginia came up to me afterwards and asked me what version of the Bible the Scriptures on the PowerPoint were from.
I told her they were from the NIV.
She responded, “Well, I wrote them all down. I have to go home and check them against the Bible to make sure it says that. I don’t usually use paraphrases. We use the King James at my church in Virginia.”
Gotta love those out of town visitors from the woods. :p
Hi George. Welcome to the Kitchen. The Akismet plugin sent your comment to the Spam folder… but it’s back now!
That version of the OT sounds interesting. I’ll have to try and hunt that one down.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
JPS translation of the psalms is really good. I haven’t looked at any of the rest of the OT. If I had to pick one translation to work from exclusively it would probably be the NRSV.
Pingback: B&B Monday: Every Man's Bible | TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen