About Translations

Subject:

Comments:
: : I don't know how you feel about The Message Bible, but... : What is important is realizing what it is -- a very, very loose paraphrase with substantial amplification. It is not a literal translation, or even a dynamic equivalent. It is someone's idea of what the real meaning is, put into modern language, with many liberties taken in changing, reconstructing, and amplifying the text. It may be great for some things, but it is inappropriate for any kind of a scholarly word study or systematic theological research. You certainly would never base any doctrinal conclusions on the wording or structure in such a version. : The sequence from most precise to least would look something like this: : Interlinear : Literal : Semi-literal : Dynamic equivalent : Amplification : Paraphrase : (...with paraphrase and amplification perhaps on the same level or reversed in order, depending on the version.) : There are great advantages to using all of the first four categories in study or research. : An Interlinear has the closest English words directly above the corresponding Greek or Hebrew words in the original text. : Literal translations change the grammatical structure enough to be understandable, and pick the closest English word translations available. With any literal (or interlinear) translation, a single word choice is often problematic, necessitating a trade-off. An example would be if the original word entails broader meaning than any single English counterpart, or vice versa. There are many other problematic issues, as you can imagine. Still, for any kind of technical study, the best place to start (besides the original texts) is with a literal or semi-literal version. : Dynamic equivalent translations (like the NIV) seek to portray the truest meaning of the passage in context, even when they must make substantial alterations to the specific words and structure to do so. This is often very helpful in understanding the essential thought of a section of scripture in context, but it is hard to do a word study (or word-based topical study) with such a version. : Semi-literal would be somewhere in-between the literal and dynamic equivalent -- more literal than a dynamic equivalent, but still taking some liberties with the text to facilitate better comprehension of essential concepts. : A NOTE: In each category above there are better versions and poorer versions, and there are good and bad sections in each version. For example, some translations that are literal in nature are not always well translated. Another problem is that sometimes a preferred tradition colors the translators' choices in certain passages (like in the KJV). Some literals (like the NAS) seem to have a predisposition to use unique language just to be different from other versions. : : Amplifications (like the Amplified Bible) are good for those who want the author to give them descriptive definitions of key words within the text. Generally the author will try to portray the richness and depth of everything the key word means, that is, CAN mean. The problem is that the authors of the biblical texts were certainly not considering every possible meaning of every single word they picked, nor hiding deep mysteries of meaning in each word or phrase that could only be discovered by in-depth study. They were communicating their messages in the language of their day, using words that were understood by their hearers to have a primary meaning discernible in the context in which they used them. Sometimes the amplification in such a version is quite helpful, like when John 3:16 renders the Greek word pisteau (to believe, have faith in) to mean: trust in, cling to, rely upon, adhere to. Believing in Christ should certainly be all of these things. But too often, unwarranted extrapolation clouds the simple meaning of the verse, ignores the context, and supposes each key word to be some sort of secret treasure chest of allegorical meaning. : Paraphrases (like the Living Bible) were defined at the beginning of this essay. They are good for those who cannot understand or appreciate a more precise rendering. They may also be useful to make one think about a different way of understanding something, and thus stimulating thought and study. (I am really trying to be nice here.) Honestly, though, they are often fraught with faulty understandings of key scriptures. : Hope this is helpful.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: