Thoughts on Comparing Translations in Bible Study

[Arthur81]

Daniel B. Wallace has a page online where he addresses "Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation", which begins as follows:

"1. Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translation is simply not possible if one is going to communicate in an understandable way in the receptor language. Yet, ironically, even some biblical scholars who should know better continue to tout word-for-word translations as though they were the best. Perhaps the most word-for-word translation of the Bible in English is Wycliffe’s, done in the 1380s. Although translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was a slavishly literal translation to that text. And precisely because of this, it was hardly English.

2. Similar to the first point is that a literal translation is the best version. In fact, this is sometimes just a spin on the first notion. For example, the Greek New Testament has about 138,000–140,000 words, depending on which edition one is using. But no English translation has this few. Here are some examples:
RSV 173,293

NIV 175,037

ESV 175,599

NIV 2011 176,122

TNIV 176,267

NRSV 176,417 ...."

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…

danielbwallace.com

The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament by Zondervan (1987) has some interesting comments in the introduction which I'll quote -

"...Even when this idiomatic translation is corrected by the grammatically literal rendering supplied in brackets, the impression remains that the interlinear rendering is the most accurate rendering possible, whereas in reality, it is just another version, not necessarily more accurate or less accurate than any other English version.
In fact, sometimes a good idiomatic translation can be as accurate as an interlinear translation, for, as any linguist will testify, no two languages are completely identical in word meanings and grammatical structures. Thus, accuracy in translation depends on 'dynamic equivalence': the process by which the meanings and impacts generated by the words and grammar of the receptor language best suited to to recreate these meanings and impacts. In some cases a word-for-word translation produces the best dynamic equivalence, but in other instances this effect must be generated through idiomatic rendering." pages xix-xx

When you compare various Greek/Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles you'll find that they often translate words differently. The literal rendering in some are understood to be different from the translation in others. For this reason, I find a study of context, usage of words in the original by the same human penman and on similar topics helps determine which translation I will embrace as the best, in my understanding. An example is Matt. 24:34 -

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished." (Matt 24:34 ASV)

"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)

These two versions state the same thing as to meaning, but the Dynamic Equivalence REB gives a more clear and definite translation, as I read it in the context of Matt. 24:1-35. As I study, occasionally I find the REB misses the mark in its translation, but overall I like the Revised English Bible, as used along with the NRSV.

 

[MatthewG]

Hello Arthur,

I wish there was a count on Youngs Literal Translation, it only has 586 pages, but Idk how many words that is in there. Tried to look it up but there doesn't seem to be a count. That is the old testament, and new testament.

 

[ScottA]

It doesn't matter.

It is of course a good study to understand the issues of translations. Thank you. Yet it is more important to understand that regardless of any and all of these issues God's word is His providence alone...and not that of the translators.

In other words, all translation issues are only used [by God] to fulfill [His] purpose, rather than the would-be agendas of men and their own motivations whether good or evil. The point being, that it is God who is in control, not men. Of course this is true, and yet many anguish over the issues of men instead of looking beyond that superficial level to understand just what it is that God is [actually] doing through the mischief of many and why. The answer of which is, He (God) is revealing all things as a testimony of or against all for the Judgment, while at the same time delivering His own good word [spiritually] rather than literarily as many many foolishly and wrongly believe.

 

[MatthewG]

That is a good point, ScottA.

Its hard to have an exact perfect translation.

Its all about the spirit of what one brings when they go to teach the bible, overall.

There is definite history and a narrative to look at, and its about the spirit which is primary to help make sense and rightly divide the bible so you dont get lost, but have some sort of direction to go on and with.

A friend of mine suggest “if a doctrine causes you to hate then you may need to readdress that doctrine or throw it away.”

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Daniel B. Wallace has a page online where he addresses "Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation", which begins as follows:

"1. Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translation is simply not possible if one is going to communicate in an understandable way in the receptor language. Yet, ironically, even some biblical scholars who should know better continue to tout word-for-word translations as though they were the best. Perhaps the most word-for-word translation of the Bible in English is Wycliffe’s, done in the 1380s. Although translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was a slavishly literal translation to that text. And precisely because of this, it was hardly English.

2. Similar to the first point is that a literal translation is the best version. In fact, this is sometimes just a spin on the first notion. For example, the Greek New Testament has about 138,000–140,000 words, depending on which edition one is using. But no English translation has this few. Here are some examples:
RSV 173,293

NIV 175,037

ESV 175,599

NIV 2011 176,122

TNIV 176,267

NRSV 176,417 ...."

Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translat…

danielbwallace.com

The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament by Zondervan (1987) has some interesting comments in the introduction which I'll quote -

"...Even when this idiomatic translation is corrected by the grammatically literal rendering supplied in brackets, the impression remains that the interlinear rendering is the most accurate rendering possible, whereas in reality, it is just another version, not necessarily more accurate or less accurate than any other English version.
In fact, sometimes a good idiomatic translation can be as accurate as an interlinear translation, for, as any linguist will testify, no two languages are completely identical in word meanings and grammatical structures. Thus, accuracy in translation depends on 'dynamic equivalence': the process by which the meanings and impacts generated by the words and grammar of the receptor language best suited to to recreate these meanings and impacts. In some cases a word-for-word translation produces the best dynamic equivalence, but in other instances this effect must be generated through idiomatic rendering." pages xix-xx

When you compare various Greek/Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles you'll find that they often translate words differently. The literal rendering in some are understood to be different from the translation in others. For this reason, I find a study of context, usage of words in the original by the same human penman and on similar topics helps determine which translation I will embrace as the best, in my understanding. An example is Matt. 24:34 -

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished." (Matt 24:34 ASV)

"Truly I tell you: the present generation will live to see it all." (Matt 24:34 REB)

These two versions state the same thing as to meaning, but the Dynamic Equivalence REB gives a more clear and definite translation, as I read it in the context of Matt. 24:1-35. As I study, occasionally I find the REB misses the mark in its translation, but overall I like the Revised English Bible, as used along with the NRSV.

Literal translations are still the best. When translated from greek to English as the English stands.

Dynamic equivalents work to give the accurate thought as opposed to a modern equivalent word. this leads to lots of subjectivity and error.

The best English New Testament is Kittles. but that is only for teh serious student.

Most English bibles do not harm to doctrine, but several do contain glaring errors in them.

 

[Rockerduck]

The article writer spent the most time on criticizing the KJV, which has more longevity(400 yrs) than the rest. The problem with "scholars" is not recognizing all the people who have had a problem and randomly opened the KJV and the verse was right there to help them. I've heard that all my life; and the connectivity of thought of the KJV from Genesis to Revelation is supernatural. None of the translations do that. I'm not a King James only, but I recognize how God has Blessed the KJV.

 

[St. SteVen]

"1. Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translation is simply not possible if one is going to communicate in an understandable way in the receptor language.

Interesting topic, thank you.

The problem with a word-for-word translation should be obvious.
Most of us know enough Spanish to translate "Que hora es?" as "What time is it?"
But the word-for-word translation would be "What hour it?"

 

[St. SteVen]

2. Similar to the first point is that a literal translation is the best version.

And even before the translation process can begin, a decision must be made about which method of Textual Criticism to align with.

Translators are not working from a single approved manuscript. We don't have the original manuscripts. So they have to decide from the thousands of copies of copies of copies and fragments... from several different locations, and different ages, with differing amounts of scribal errors, omissions and additions, which ones to use as a starting point. The oldest and most original? The majority text? Or the version that best aligns with presupposed "orthodox" doctrinal bias. (dogma) What a mess.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

 

[Arthur81]

Those of us who are not scholars in the NT Greek and the textual variants are not without helps to make a decision on textual matters for ourselves. Just as I do not study from a single denominational source, but compare arguments, I can do the same with the questions on the Greek. For instance, on 2 Thess. 2:13, do I stay with the NRSV, or back up to the ASV, or embrace the more dynamic REB.

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:" (2Thess 2:13 ASV)

"But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth." (2Thess 2:13 NRSV)

"We are always bound to thank God for you, my friends beloved by the Lord. From the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit who consecrates you and in the truth you believe." (2Thess 2:13 REB)

I can read an argument on this question in the conservative NET Bible notes -

"2 tc ‡ Several mss (B F G P 0278 33 81 323 1739 1881 al bo) read ἀπαρχήν (aparchn, “as a first fruit”; i.e., as the first converts) instead of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς (ap’ arch", “from the beginning,” found in א D Ψ Ï it sa), but this seems more likely to be a change by scribes who thought of the early churches in general in this way. But Paul would not be likely to call the Thessalonians “the first fruits” among his converts. Further, ἀπαρχή (aparch, “first fruit”) is a well-worn term in Paul’s letters (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 15:20, 23; 16:15), while ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς occurs nowhere else in Paul. Scribes might be expected to change the text to the more familiar term. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult (see arguments for ἀπαρχήν in TCGNT 568), and ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς must be preferred only slightly."

Then 'theWord' software has a help on this as well in a module of textual variants -

2 Thessalonians 2:13:
TEXT: "God picked plyou as firstfruits for salvation"
EVIDENCE: B F G P 33 81 1739 1881 some lat vg syr(h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "God picked plyou from the beginning for salvation"
EVIDENCE: S D K L Psi 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect some lat syr(p) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEVn
COMMENTS: There is only one letter's difference between "as firstfruits" and "from the beginning." The UBS Textual Committee preferred "firstfruits" because the prepositional phrase "from the beginning" is not used elsewhere by Paul while he uses the word "firstfruits" six other times, and in two of those places some copyists have changed "firstfruits" to "from the beginning."

While the NRSV is by liberal American scholars, the REB is by liberal British scholars and they do not agree. These sort of questions are important to me so I spent the $$ to purchase 'A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition' by Bruce Metzger, and read the reasoning behind the NRSV. There is also the free web site of commentaries with excellent NT Greek discussions at Comprehensive Overview of the Bible Commentaries available FREELY on StudyLight.org!

On the studylight web site you can read a Greek discussion on this by the 19th century Lutheran, H. Meyer -

"ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] from the beginning, i.e. from eternity. Comp. 1Jn 1:1; 1Jn 2:13. The following forms are analogous: ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, Eph 3:9; ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, Col 1:26; πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, 1Co 2:7; πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Eph 1:4; πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, 2Ti 1:9. Others, as Vorstius and Krause, interpret ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς of the beginning of the publication of the gospel, so that the Thessalonians were reckoned as the first who embraced the gospel in Macedonia. But this does not suit εἵλατο, for the election on the part of God belongs to the region of eternity; the calling (2Th 2:14) is its realization in time. Besides, an addition would be necessary to ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, as Php 4:15 proves, ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Lastly, the objection of Vorstius: “absurdum est, per principium intelligere aeternitatem, quippe in qua nullum est principium,” overlooks the fact that ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is nothing more than a popular expression."

After researching a question such as this, I use common sense based on comparing scripture with scripture. Paul's trip to Thessalonica is mentioned in Acts 17:1 and that is long after the 3000 converts in Acts 2; so I see no way to call the Thessalonians "firstfruits". To close these remarks, I will admit that overall, I give a lot of weight to the 1901 ASV for the simple reason it is accurate and translated before some of the modern social issues began to taint the translation of some passages of scripture. The KJV is of course my starting point because almost all of my language helps are keyed to Strong's numbering system. Those of us who are not Greek scholars are not left helpless in these matters. Of course it is a given that only believers having the indwelling Holy Spirit can understand such issues.