One of the most common questions I get as a minister is what Bible translations are best. The realm of different Bible translations can be quite confusing given just how many different ones there are. Walk into any book store that sells Bibles and you will immediately be confronted by dozens of different translations. So which one is best?
Well, that depends on what you're looking for.
To start we must acknowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. No English Bible will be able to perfectly capture the original languages nuances and meanings and precisely put them into our language. That doesn't mean our translations don't do an excellent job, but it does mean none are perfect.
Essentially there are two approaches to translating the Bible. The first is going for a Word-for-Word approach. This approach attempts to bring what the original says into English as closely as possible. The upside is that you get to see, as close as possible, what the original text is saying. There is also less opportunity (though it still happens) for a translator's theological bias to get in.
The downside is that these translations don't necessarily flow well in English as they are concerned more about the fidelity to the original Greek and Hebrew than they are how it sounds to us. Another downside is that the euphemisms, turns of phrase, and other cultural sayings will stay as is, meaning that for most people they won't make any sense.
The other approach to Bible translation is Thought-for-Thought. This approach attempts to bring what the original means into English. The upside here is that the text flows well in English and isn't awkward to read. It also means that the sayings and euphemisms of the text are exchanged for their equivalent expressions in our culture, helping it all to make more sense.
The biggest downside to this approach is that what the text means is far more open to interpretation and bias on the part of the translator. If the translator has an express theological agenda or bias, it is much easier for them make a Thought-for-Thought translation to reflect this. Another issue is that you lose a lot of the complexity of the text as it is smoothed over to make it easier to read in English.
Now the vast majority of translations don't strictly adhere to one approach or the other. They attempt to incorporate both, they just tend to rely more on one than the other. Common translations that lean more toward the Word-for-Word approach are the ESV, NRSV, NASB, and the NKJV. Common translations that would be considered more Thought-for-Thought are the NIV, NLT, and the CSB.
So which is better? That depends on what you are using it for. I would say generally that when doing in depth study it is usually better to go Word-for-Word. For more casual, devotional reading I think Thought-for-Thought can be good. It really comes down to what you're more comfortable with.
Well, that depends on what you're looking for.
To start we must acknowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. No English Bible will be able to perfectly capture the original languages nuances and meanings and precisely put them into our language. That doesn't mean our translations don't do an excellent job, but it does mean none are perfect.
Essentially there are two approaches to translating the Bible. The first is going for a Word-for-Word approach. This approach attempts to bring what the original says into English as closely as possible. The upside is that you get to see, as close as possible, what the original text is saying. There is also less opportunity (though it still happens) for a translator's theological bias to get in.
The downside is that these translations don't necessarily flow well in English as they are concerned more about the fidelity to the original Greek and Hebrew than they are how it sounds to us. Another downside is that the euphemisms, turns of phrase, and other cultural sayings will stay as is, meaning that for most people they won't make any sense.
The other approach to Bible translation is Thought-for-Thought. This approach attempts to bring what the original means into English. The upside here is that the text flows well in English and isn't awkward to read. It also means that the sayings and euphemisms of the text are exchanged for their equivalent expressions in our culture, helping it all to make more sense.
The biggest downside to this approach is that what the text means is far more open to interpretation and bias on the part of the translator. If the translator has an express theological agenda or bias, it is much easier for them make a Thought-for-Thought translation to reflect this. Another issue is that you lose a lot of the complexity of the text as it is smoothed over to make it easier to read in English.
Now the vast majority of translations don't strictly adhere to one approach or the other. They attempt to incorporate both, they just tend to rely more on one than the other. Common translations that lean more toward the Word-for-Word approach are the ESV, NRSV, NASB, and the NKJV. Common translations that would be considered more Thought-for-Thought are the NIV, NLT, and the CSB.
So which is better? That depends on what you are using it for. I would say generally that when doing in depth study it is usually better to go Word-for-Word. For more casual, devotional reading I think Thought-for-Thought can be good. It really comes down to what you're more comfortable with.
Comments
Post a Comment