Best Type of Bible Translation?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 окт 2024
- This video is from a few years ago when my audience was much smaller. I felt the content was so good it needed to be shared again because I am certain most of you missed it. I want to thank my good friends Tim Frisch and Jonathan Resmini for taking their time to do this interview and I think it would be a great thing to watch for you. If you haven’t subscribed to Tim Frisch’s channel @AFrischPerspective , I would strongly encourage you to do so.
/ @afrischperspective
Jonathan is a very kind brother. I once bought a Bible from him and he threw in a free copy of St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy which I have greatly enjoyed reading.
" let the word speak for itself" Amen brother
Love this video it’s so important my dear brother!! I love personally like you for preaching and teaching the NKJV!!! The Western Text basis is my preference. I use other translations for study of course..
I remember this....time flies! Also, Tim you look younger now.
Well dang!!
Fr. Jonathan is an outstanding teacher and hosts The Whole Church podcast. I appreciated how he mentioned learning it in Greek as well. I believe it’s essential to become familiar with Greek and not be allergic to it. When you know Greek, you begin to move past relying on English translations. For most Americans, myself included in the past, this is often not even considered.
8:30, I agree, this has been my experience too with dynamic equivalence/paraphrase translations.
GREAT VIDEO TIM! 🦬🌲🌲🌲🦬
Well it hasn’t premiered yet. Ha ha.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Tim, wasn't this Video from about 4 years ago?
I actually recommend 3 Bibles:
1) ESV/NASB(LSB) for normal study.
2) CSB/NIV/NLT for when you feel lost in the weeds or ideas in how to modernize an idiom.
3) KJV/NKJV for devotional reading.
Lovong the BSB, still use NKJV, and HCSB.
I'm waiting with great enthusiasm for them to publish their majority text. However the BSB has become a huge favourite for me, as it has 90% of what i want in a bible.
I also have the BSB. It is a great translation that is similar to the NASB, LSB, and NKJV.
The NJB is the best actual idea of "dynamic equivalence" I've found. It's a tough balance to find when idioms don't carry over languages.
I like the NLT, NKJV, NASB, and ESV in that order.
NLT is a paraphrase, KJB is a word for word, ESV uses the critical text which is missing alot of words, phrases, and verses.
@@ModernBiblesCorrected-oz9ks are you a KJV only person?
@@InkRavenLion no, I beleive there are other foreign language Bibles with the words of God in them.
Several people don't bother to read the footnotes though, so I think that italics or bolded words are helpful because they at least call the reader's attention to them. I speak from the perspective of one who studies Scripture though. I can't just pick up the Bible and read for the sake of reading. Something will always jump out at me and say hey, I'm important. Study me!
Good discussion, gentlemen. While my personal favorite is the NKJV, I also like the NASB very much. Lately I've been reading the CSB and I find it to be both an excellent translation and highly readable. It's not hard to understand why the CSB is growing in popularity.
As an aside... the New Living Translation is a translation and NOT a paraphrase. I think many people confuse the NLT with The Living Bible (which is a paraphrase) because their names are similar and both are published by Tyndale. While I would not use the NLT as my primary scripture source, it makes an excellent companion to more literal translations like the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV.
I don’t think anyone said the NLT was a paraphrase. Jonathan even mentioned it was a translation done by legitimate scholars.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews My apologies. I must have missed that.
"I think many people confuse the NLT with The Living Bible"
I did! I forget what video I watched, but I remember having that assumption and then learning otherwise.
@@Yesica1993 they are the same.
NASB uses the critical text from later manuscripts.
CSB for me these days. 😊
Im KJV. Looking for an literal alternative. I was using ASV for that but am looking for another. Lastly, maybe and only as a companion a dynamic. For this I've used Amplified but am open to others. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Can't wait for part 2
Being an AV/KJV Bible believer as part and parcel of being a Received Text Bible believer who rejects both King James Version Onlyism (KJVO) and Original Autograph Onlyism (OAO) as equally being errors, I view all "translations" that do not follow the original historic definition of translation (being an _idiomatically equivalent_ formal-verbal literal rendering of the original language in the receptor language), let alone those that are based on the corrupt eclectic critical text, as being fallible human commentaries no differently than that which is preaching and teaching, receiving what is written in them where they agree with the Received Text of the scriptures and rejecting the rest-this is how I receive and use the NKJV and MEV, for example. I think that the three of you raise valid points regarding the current application of the modern concept of "translation philosophy", and even while holding the KJB as being the word of God in the English tongue to the English-speaking peoples, I would love to have a study tool (no differently than any other commentaries that I read, receiving them in the same manner as I do sitting myself under anyone's preaching and teaching ministry with the same heart and mind as did the Bereans as recorded in Acts 17:11) a set of works based on the Received Text of the scriptures like unto the BSB that otherwise agrees with and exalts the language used in the KJB for the very reasons that you all hold the BSB in high regard. Yes, the highly elevated, technically regulated "early" _modern_ English language of the KJB is hard for most people today to understand given the general state of our educational system and a lack of having been raised reading the KJB (in this, I am blessed to have a KJB believing mother who instructed us to simply read and believe our Bible, asking God to give us the understanding of the text from the scriptures, and this using scripture to interpret scripture according to the normal-literal historical-grammatical construction of the text), and in this as one with a heart for pastoral care to ensure that the hearer understands the sense of the text (Nehemiah 8:1-8, Acts 8:30-35), I think that such a work similar to the BSB based on the Received Text being a commentary on the scriptures when received with this understanding would be invaluable in helping people understand the scriptures.
_Note: I know that we disagree regarding the opinions of the majority of those who practice modern textual scholarship, but in case anyone reading this misses my heart and mind in this, I recognize and receive all three of you as brothers in our Lord Jesus Christ. I appreciate the perspectives that you bring even though we have come to very different conclusions regarding textual criticism and modern translation philosophy, and I pray that you can receive this in heart as I advocate for a position with which you disagree even as I value what you're sharing, believing that you're doing so in good faith. The lack of charity coming from certain KJVO and OAO advocates grieves me deeply, and I hope that you know that I love you in the Lord regardless of our disagreements in this issue. Thank you for sharing this video! You all challenge me to continually re-evaluate and challenge my own understanding of these issues and my doctrinal and practical commitments (in line with 1 Peter 3:14-17 and 2 Corinthians 14:5-6), and for this, I'm grateful._
Appreciate the comment!
My daily reader is NLT.
I love the NLT but whenever I preach to kids, youth or adults, I just the NKJV.
It's not the translation of the Bible that is important. It is whether the Bible has been altered in any way, such as removing Scripture, Adding Scripture, or altering Scripture which all Bibles from the 16th century have done.
Say what?
If I'm understanding your concern, the problem as you see it is the textual basis for the scriptures-if so, I agree that this is a bigger issue initially than translation philosophy. The AV/KJV is an idiomatically equivalent formal-verbal literal rendering in the highly elevated, technically regulated "early" _modern_ English language of the English tongue based on the Received Text, being the critical text of the Byzantine family, which is the majority text and in agreement with the vast majority of early patristic quotes and paraphrastic renderings, while the vast majority of modern translations are based on the eclectic critical text of the Alexandrian family, being the minority text (no more than 10% of extant manuscripts at the absolute most). The altered and removed passages of scriptures in the modern translations are such because they are based on the Alexandrian eclectic critical text, which I agree with you is corrupt. This being said, the translators of the KJB had choices to make when purifying the translation of the scriptures in the English tongue, but I believe that the Spirit moved upon them in their work in the same power in which he inspired the scriptures in the original tongues. While an accurate late modern English translation of the scriptures, if such a thing is even possible given the differences between early and late modern English language, would use different words, the translating itself should still be just as idiomatically equivalent in its formal-verbal literalness of rendering-this is to say that the translation itself does matter, but of course, one needs to have the correct textual basis.
Where does the NET come in line with this discussion?
The NET is mostly known for its notes. But it would be more on the dynamic side as a translation.
The ones that were around before 1881.
Meaning?
I thought the NLT was a translation. Father John was saying it’s a paraphrase. ??
He clearly called it a translation, even mentioned legitimate scholarship.
OK. On second listen I can hear what you are saying. He worded it a bit unclearly, but he was calling it a legitimate translation done by scholars but more toward the paraphrastic side of the translation scale, which is certainly the case. It is the probably the most dynamic example.
If you avoid the KJV because it is hard to read, you must ask yourself this question. Why do you read Shakespeare/Chaucer and other old literature in order to develop culture/impress people BUT avoid the KJV which is your instruction manual for walking with God/saving your soul?
I don’t avoid the KJV.
I teach English in the public school system. This argument has holes; we study Shakespeare's writings to try to grasp the meaning of the language they used at the time of his writing. Shakespeare is not writing an interpretation of events from 1400 years prior... if he was, we would probably enjoy studying his works ALONGSIDE studying the original works and other interpretations of those original works. Not apples to apples. I'm in a rush to head to church - I apologize if this is rushed and unclear. :)