Hi Rog, Following our discussion last night about Bible translations to be used on the BlogSite ........
Which Bible translation should we use when we are quoting Bible verses?
My preference is always for accuracy, so I prefer a literal translation for "theological" discussions. Examples are the Concordant Literal Version (CLV) and Youngs Literal Translations (YLT and RYLT).
But I also like paraphrases, as they are much easier to read and understand than the more stilted, wooden literal translations, and I am happy to use them providing they don't stray from the literal, original meaning. Examples are the New living Translation (NLT), The Message (TM), the Good News Bible (GNB) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV). Unfortunately, paraphrases usually reflect the theological positions of their authors. When these positions are in harmony with the truth being revealed in a particular passage or verse, then the paraphrase can be used with confidence, but otherwise cannot.
Other popular Bibles are the King James version (KJV), the New King James version (NKJV), the New American Standard Version (NASV) - which are closer to the literal translation end - and the New International Bible (NIV) - which hovers around the middle - of the literal ... paraphrase scale.
So we seem to have two options here (given I shouldn't use my own translations).
Option A. On each occasion a verse is to be quoted, we use the translation that is easiest to read and understand which is true to the original Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT). This will result in many different translations being used throughout the BlogSite, a bit like the last post on "The Third View" when 5 or 6 translations were used.
Option B. Choose a middle of the range translation (like the NIV) for all quotes and add, when needed for the particular discussion in progress, explanatory notes to paraphrase difficult words or to give the more literal meaning of words that were too loosely translated. This will result in a quoted verse looking like "Then they will go away to eternal (eonian, age-lasting, age-during, a time of) punishment (correction, cutting-off), but the righteous to eternal (eonian, age-lasting, age-during, a time of) life." Matthew 25 : 46 NIV
Which should we use, or is there a third option?
I think I prefer Option A as it makes the verse quoted easier to flow and look part of the discussion being read. Rick Warren uses this option in his books, if you're familiar with his writings.
What do you think?
As a consequence of deciding to go with Option A above, I will include a statement like the following on the website.
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, no English translation of the Bible seems to be completely free of errors or biases. Readers who wish to study the topics discussed on this website, indeed any topic from a Biblical perspective, are encouraged to refer to a variety of Bible translations.
When considering difficult or controversial topics, the more literal English translations, like Young's Literal, Rotherham Literal and the Concordant Literal, are well worth consulting.
It is also helpful on these occasions to study the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words used in the original texts at the times those texts were written, as modern meanings of words are sometimes misleading. (You can probably think of some examples in English where the meaning of words has changed, some quite dramatically, over the centuries.)
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance can also be very helpful, but it does have its own biases and inaccuracies in some areas.
The Bible quotations we use throughout the website are therefore from a variety of translations and versions. The choice at any particular time has depended on the need for easy readability, especially of longer quotations, or the need to clearly demonstrate the truth being discussed. On all occasions the translation or version used has been noted immediately after the quotation.
Sometimes whole verses will be quoted, sometimes a collection of verses, and sometimes just a part of a verse, whichever does the job best. I make no apology for using just a part of a verse to help make a point. Jesus did it and several New Testament authors did it when referencing Old Testament texts.
In any case, chapter and verse divisions were not inserted into the Biblical text until a few centuries ago, and, it seems to me, the beginnings and endings of some chapters and verses must have been decided by a committee who were riding bareback on a camel at the time. So I have no great respect for where an idea starts and ends within the English Biblical text - I just quote it.