# Readable vs "Modern Speech"



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 31, 2011)

Rant coming...

As I've studied the translation issue, and read my own copies, it has become obvious that the dynamic and paraphrase Bibles (NLT, CEB, CEV, The "Massage" and Living Bibles) have grown to confuse "readability" with "how we speak today." They've used things like contractions and slang words more and more, and insist "we need to have a readable Bible" alongside of "having a Bible that speaks like we do."

But really, what great literature, news, or even instruction manuals are written how we speak? These folks complain about the NASB, NKJV, ESV and others "not sounding how people talk" (the Better Bibles Blog is notorious with this). However, these people don't insist that *Time *and *Newsweek *(which by the way still use "man" for "humankind" [eesh!]) "update" their language. You don't hear them push for the dumbing down of great literature (e.g. Shakespeare), good journalism, and textbooks because they don't "talk like the modern person does." Interesting how they insist the timeless Word of God be changed to become quickly dated.

The KJV (and its contemporaries) were written to be understandable to the "average Joe", but were NOT how this fellow speaks. I think this is why the KJV has such an enduring legacy. The language is "different" from what the average person says, and is longer lasting. 

I am all for updating God's Word with the language, and note that the minimal revisions of the NASB and ESV (and almost total lack of revision of the NKJV) is notable in that these translations have a stronger hold on the use of the average Christian and church, despite the language being somewhat more elevated, or at least precise (these are also more accurate to the original text, btw.).

I say yes, update the language to make it readable to the guy on the street, but there's no reason why it should sound like said example.


----------



## Reforming (Dec 31, 2011)

Well said! I would never read a translation that I didn't think was beautiful; the best examples would benthe KJV, REB, and ESV.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 1, 2012)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> But really, what great literature, news, or even instruction manuals are written how we speak? These folks complain about the NASB, NKJV, ESV and others "not sounding how people talk" (the Better Bibles Blog is notorious with this). However, these people don't insist that Time and Newsweek (which by the way still use "man" for "humankind" [eesh!]) "update" their language. You don't hear them push for the dumbing down of great literature (e.g. Shakespeare), good journalism, and textbooks because they don't "talk like the modern person does." Interesting how they insist the timeless Word of God be changed to become quickly dated.
> 
> The KJV (and its contemporaries) were written to be understandable to the "average Joe", but were NOT how this fellow speaks. I think this is why the KJV has such an enduring legacy. The language is "different" from what the average person says, and is longer lasting.



If great literature, good journalism, textbooks, and the KJV are your standards for how things should be written, then sure, you would want your translation in formal, erudite English. You would want your Bible for the educated.

The New Testament, though, was written not in formal classical Greek, but in Koine Greek. The New Testament was written not to be erudite or of literary value, but to speak the truth of the gospel to as many people as possible. It was not meant to be simply read in a book, but to be read out loud to a congregation.

It was the Greek that most people spoke as a trade language when they didn't share a common native language. In that sense, it would be the equivalent of the English that immigrants speak to other immigrants of different backgrounds, or the Pidgin English that exists in many countries around the world.

People here often write about how easy the KJV English is to learn, and that anyone should be able to learn it. I wonder how many of you minister to immigrant populations. They speak good conversational English, but have a very, very difficult time reading formal Bible translations. They don't read English literature, good journalism, or textbooks. For them, "talk like the modern person does" is the only English they know or have a need for. Many of them are not functionally literate in their native languages either.

I have given the New Living Translation to these kind of people. Whereas they would struggle and struggle with the ESV, they devour the NLT, and God's Word in it speaks to them.


----------



## rookie (Jan 1, 2012)

I agree 100%. Seems this latest generation at least is not only dumbing down the language, but they are lazier and lazier when it comes to learning grammatical syntax in spelling, and in the construction of sentences and thoughts.

I remember recently, I wrote a number of articles to our local newspaper in the public forum. I try to pay as much attention as I can to spelling, and flowing of thoughts. I then was invited for a coffee with a local professional.

When I showed up at his office, he looked at me and said "don't take this the wrong way, but I was expecting someone more intelligent looking". He was impressed with my penmanship (with a keyboard mind you) and that I looked more intelligent on paper.

This may be because I am quite strict on the accuracy of language and words used. But now, people don't want to use big words anymore because they confuse everyone. Well, if everyone read more, and weren't so lazy (talking younger generation here), maybe we wouldn't need do dumb down everything around us.

Hope I was still on topic, but seems I was thinking about the same rant for a while.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 3, 2012)

I would not be surprised to see a translation coming out with chatting/texting abbreviations soon (lol, l8er, brb). After all that is the language most young people use today right? 

Let's remember that when the Refomation era bibles were translated most people were illiterate, did the people complain because it was not dumbed up enough for them? The translation of these bibles was actually one of the main factors that motivated people to learn to read. 




elnwood said:


> People here often write about how easy the KJV English is to learn, and that anyone should be able to learn it. I wonder how many of you minister to immigrant populations. They speak good conversational English, but have a very, very difficult time reading formal Bible translations. They don't read English literature, good journalism, or textbooks. For them, "talk like the modern person does" is the only English they know or have a need for. Many of them are not functionally literate in their native languages either.



Then they should be given a good bible in their native language, teaching them english is also an option. If the motivation is there they will invest the time required to learn. The answer to illiteracy is not to dumb down the books.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 3, 2012)

What needs to be established is whether or not the translation does justice to the original text. If the translation conveys the intended point of the text in a reliable and readable way that accurately expresses the meaning of said passage, then it does the job. If it does not (as, unfortunately, the Message is guilty of doing in passages), then something is wrong.


----------



## Somerset (Jan 3, 2012)

If reading English really is a problem, then any Bible is better than no Bible. But I think many people take one look at the AV and just assume they can't cope. My mother in law left school at 12, as did most of her friends, but they all managed to read the AV.

I don't know about text talk but on my one visit to the local URC church I was puzzled over a character in the Bible called "Rocky" - thought they might have confused a Bible with a film script.


----------



## JoannaV (Jan 3, 2012)

A Bible _could _be unreadable. But just because it is unreadable to someone somewhere doesn't make it unreadable. In many cases we have a dual responsibility: produce translations in languages, and teach the people a language they can read the Bible in (whether that be a new language or increasing their literacy).


----------



## jambo (Jan 3, 2012)

I do not like the message nor any other version that is a paraphrase. Having said that, the view of Tyndale that the "plough boy and the parlour maid" should have copies of the scriptures in a language they can understand is a principle to be kept before us. Personally my first preference is a version that is a formal equivalent as I tend to favour accuracy over readability. But that does not suit everyone. When we lived in the Irish Republic I met a high number of people whose reading ability was not good and although I did not like the Good News Bible, I found it was one version that suited people whose literacy skills were not good. We may not have plough boys and parlour maids today but we still have their equivalents.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 3, 2012)

jambo said:


> We may not have plough boys and parlour maids today but we still have their equivalents.


Now we have rugby players  (I'm a recent convert to rugby)

Back on topic, you're right: when you paraphrase, you're taking the scriptures in an awfully risky direction. With the plethora of decent Bible translations available, there's no reason why a person cannot pick up a good Bible with formal equivalency.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 3, 2012)

Fogetaboutit said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > People here often write about how easy the KJV English is to learn, and that anyone should be able to learn it. I wonder how many of you minister to immigrant populations. They speak good conversational English, but have a very, very difficult time reading formal Bible translations. They don't read English literature, good journalism, or textbooks. For them, "talk like the modern person does" is the only English they know or have a need for. *Many of them are not functionally literate in their native languages either.*
> ...



See what I bolded above. If you haven't worked with immigrant populations, it would be difficult to understand their situation.

Many of them grew up speaking their native language at home but were never taught to read and write in their language, and have no reason to learn now. Take, for example, someone who can speak one of the Asian languages, but doesn't know how to read the script for the language.

Also, many foreign translations have the same problem that formal equivalent English translations have. They are written at a formal, educated level such that a person who was not educated in that language would not be able to read it well. And unlike English, most other languages don't have much of a choice regarding which Bible translation.

Again, many speak conversational English perfectly fine. What they need is a Bible that is written in conversational English rather than requiring them to seek further education (which can be expensive, time-consuming, and often ineffective, especially beyond a certain age) in order to read God's word.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 3, 2012)

The proliferation of bible translations today is not dependent upon the market desire for a faithful rendering of the original text into “readable” English. The driving force behind the ever increasing demand for new, newer, and newest translations is purely market driven. Market researchers are shrewd enough to know that the dominant purchaser of a “hot off the press” translation is not concerned with faithfulness to the original text.

This is why there will continue to be a ripe harvest of purchasers for the latest claimant offering the most comfort and ease in reading the bible. The serious student of Holy Scripture wants to be assured that the words which he is prayerfully hiding in his heart are trustworthy equivalents of those penned by the biblical writers.
However the serious student of Holy Scripture is not who Market gurus are targeting. The money is to be made by selling ever newer translations to those who know little and care less about such things as guarding the sacred text.

But for those who do care about such sacred matters it is imperative that they be assured that the bible they are reading is accurately conveying to them the Holy Words of the apostles and prophets.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 3, 2012)

elnwood said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > elnwood said:
> ...



Once upon a time churches taught people to read so that they could read the Scriptures. While there are no doubt notable exceptions, generally speaking the practice in our atomistic society today appears to be to simply shove the product of some impersonal conglomerate into their hands and tell them to be warmed and filled. (I'm not imputing this to you, Don, and I appreciate your concerns here even if I don't entirely agree with the recommendations.) 

100 years ago many people could read the AV and understand most of it even though it wasn't modern then. The average level of education at that time prior to compulsory schooling was much lower, with many doing well to finish the 8th Grade before having to drop out to work or whatever. 

Now, many struggle with the NIV (which is frequently paraphrasistic but is not a paraphrase) and are probably doing good to read the NLT. Functional illiteracy is worse now than any time in recent memory. (And I'm referring here to native English speakers.) There are many factors involved, including educational and societal (including different forms of entertainment, family breakdown, etc.) 

I've said before that the NIV is a dumbed down Bible for a dumbed down populace. And now little more than 30 years after its release, even it is too difficult for many people, leading to the popularity of the NLT and The Message. New "fresh" versions coming out every decade haven't been the panacea that the promoters of dynamic equivalency had hoped for. (Well, except for finances of the publishing houses.) 

Perhaps this is the Bible version equivalent to seeker sensitive methodology?

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

With regard to the OP, I would disagree with the idea that there is almost a "total lack" of revision with the NKJV unless revision refers to textual variants. But that appears to me to be a different topic than the question of modernized language.


----------



## KMK (Jan 3, 2012)

Readability is not as important as 'read-a-loudability'.

WLC Q 155 



> Q. 155. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
> A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, *but especially the preaching of the Word*, an effectual means of enlightening,



The KJV was translated with this in mind. I am not sure about modern translations. It is obvious the NASB was not.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 3, 2012)

Accuracy in translation is critical. And some of the "everyday language" translations are a problem in that regard. But beyond that, we ought NOT to argue for a more educated translation solely on the premise that we want to keep from "dumbing down" the language. That is far from our chief concern when it comes to the Word of God. Our chief concern ought to be that a translation speaks correctly and poignantly to the heart... even the heart of a less uneducated person who hasn't yet mastered more educated language. If this dumbs down the language, so be it! Our concern for reaching hearts with God's Word ought to outweigh our concerns about the dumbing down of language.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 4, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Our chief concern ought to be that a translation speaks correctly and poignantly to the heart... even the heart of a less uneducated person who hasn't yet mastered more educated language. If this dumbs down the language, so be it! Our concern for reaching hearts with God's Word ought to outweigh our concerns about the dumbing down of language.



Jack, I don’t want to misunderstand you but it seems that there is a pitfall to your conclusion regarding “our chief concern.” What if the favorite translation erroneously represents that very Word of God which we desire reaches the heart?

For example take John 13:1 “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, *He loved them to the end*.” ( NKJ)

The final clause consists of just four words in the original: *εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς*. Most English versions translate this as “He loved them to the end”. 
But suppose this person we are concerned about, or his teacher, is reading from the NIRV? 

The NIRV renders the verse thusly:



> John 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world. It was time for him to go to the Father. Jesus loved his disciples who were in the world. *So he now showed them how much he really loved them*. (Joh 13:1 NIRV)



The *four* words in the original Greek become *eleven* words in the English of the NIRV. And it should be apparent that the NIRV has moved well beyond translating and encroached into the realm of interpretation. Aside from the fact that these ought to be separate disciplines we might ask “is their interpretation right beyond dispute?”


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 4, 2012)

elnwood said:


> See what I bolded above. If you haven't worked with immigrant populations, it would be difficult to understand their situation.
> 
> Many of them grew up speaking their native language at home but *were never taught to read and write in their language, and have no reason to learn now*. Take, for example, someone who can speak one of the Asian languages, but doesn't know how to read the script for the language.
> 
> ...



I understand your concern for those who might be illiterate but I disagree with the statement that they have no reason to want to learn to read. If they are saved they definitely have a reason to learn how to read. If as you said they can have a conversation in english it means they have the ability to listen and understand spoken english. I usually give out a DVD which narrates the bible (CD or MP3 would also do the job) along with the KJV I give out since many people I deal with are french or have been mislead in believing the KJV cannot be understood. Yes there might be words they might not understand at first but this is not limited to the KJV, they will encounter this even in the paraphrases. Nothing a dictionary or Google cannot fix. Most people found this approach to be very helpfull. The integrity of scriptures should never be at stake and as mentionned in previous post the multitude of bible version today have nothing to do with reaching the illiterates is all about money.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Our chief concern ought to be that a translation speaks correctly and poignantly to the heart... even the heart of a less uneducated person who hasn't yet mastered more educated language. If this dumbs down the language, so be it! Our concern for reaching hearts with God's Word ought to outweigh our concerns about the dumbing down of language.
> ...



Which is why I started by saying accuracy is critical and by admitting that some of the everyday language translations are a problem in this regard. What I mean to say (and I thought I did) is that once you get _beyond_ that initial issue, _then_ speaking to people in their "heart dialect" is more important than preserving a sense of being educated.

The Bible was not given chiefly to make us erudite. Nor does God come and insist we learn his proper, educated language before he will tell us the full glories of salvation. Rather, he comes and speaks to us in our language. Claims that an archaic translation would be no problem if only people were committed enough to spend a few years getting used to it, or learned it as children, seem to misrepresent how God speaks to us. He doesn't require much learning, effort or familiarity with the church on our part first. Instaed, he graciously speaks in ordinary words that ordinary people already know. There's always more study we can do later (especially in original languages), but a Bible in ordinary language most accurately represents how God speaks to us.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 4, 2012)

Jack K said:


> What I mean to say (and I thought I did) is that once you get beyond that initial issue, then *speaking to people* in their "heart dialect" is more important than preserving a sense of being educated.



Jack I certainly mean no offense. I have always appreciated your warm-hearted posts. I am genuinely trying to understand the flow of your thinking on this. I think we are agreed upon the necessity of faithfully translating the inspired words of the sacred text into accurate and equivalent words in the readers language. Such faithful and equivalent words need not be chosen from the more complicated synonyms on the list of options. When you say "then when *speaking* to people in their *heart dialect*" are you then moving from the well translated bible to discussing, teaching, preaching, etc. the meaning of the passage? I sincerely want to understand.

Thanks.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > What I mean to say (and I thought I did) is that once you get beyond that initial issue, then *speaking to people* in their "heart dialect" is more important than preserving a sense of being educated.
> ...



I guess I've not been as clear as I might...

I just mean that one goal of Bible translation should be to use ordinary language that anyone can understand. To give up a measure of this (maybe even a lot of this) for the sake of accuracy of translation is good and necessary. But to abandon ordinary language simply to make the Bible sound more educated, or to challenge people to be more studious, or to create a biblical dialect that sounds different, is a bad idea. That fits neither the Bible's original style nor what it reveals about how God speaks to us.


----------



## KMK (Jan 4, 2012)

Jack K said:


> I just mean that one goal of Bible translation should be to use ordinary language that anyone can understand.



Anyone? Who is 'anyone'? This is where things get very subjective. Which Bible, in your opinion, uses language that 'anyone' can understand? Any Bible in any language going to require some education in order to be understandable.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2012)

KMK said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > I just mean that one goal of Bible translation should be to use ordinary language that anyone can understand.
> ...



I guess I mean a typical adult native speaker without advanced education. That's one goal of translation, though not the chief one. And I suppose where we can make it readable for children/immigrants/etc. without sacrificing richness of meaning that's good too.

I don't know that I have a strong opinion on where to draw that line. I personally use the ESV, mostly. My only point, really, is that we ought to not purposely make the Bible hard to read or stylisticly "educated" just to promote being educated. It seemed that position was being espoused. Go to school if you want to become educated. Read the Bible to have God speak to you.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 4, 2012)

A good read on the matter:

The Word of God in English, Leland Ryken

AMR


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 4, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> A good read on the matter:
> 
> The Word of God in English, Leland Ryken


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 5, 2012)

Jack K said:


> My only point, really, is that we ought to not purposely make the Bible hard to read or stylisticly "educated" just to promote being educated. It seemed that position was being espoused. Go to school if you want to become educated. Read the Bible to have God speak to you.



I don't think this was the position being defended here. What I was pointing was that this seem to be the favorite card used by those who advocate that all translations are legitimate, I do not consider myself to be highly educated, my native tongue is not english and I do not need a paraphrase to understand God's word in english. Although the KJV might have a "poetic" style it is not hard to read and you do not need to be highly educated to be able to read it. I know people who have a limited education and have no issues with reading the KJV. 

Maybe if we would stop telling people that they are too stupid to understand the bible they wouldn't be so intimidated by it. Telling somebody that they do not have the ability to do something will definitely affect their motivation to even attempt to do it, and if they do try they will quit at the first obstacle because in their mind it will only be a proof of what they have already been told. Sure it will require more work or time for some but who cares it's not a race. Being ignorant is not the same as being mentaly handicaped. If somebody is truly saved and you would give him the option of having a bible which is accurate but might take some time to get used to, or a bible which might seem easier to read but has flaws in it the decision should be a no brainer. 

If a translation hinders the accuracy of scriptures in any way (which paraphrases definitely do) it is simply not an option.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 5, 2012)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Maybe if we would stop telling people that they are too stupid to understand the bible they wouldn't be so intimidated by it. Telling somebody that they do not have the ability to do something will definitely affect their motivation to even attempt to do it, and if they do try they will quit at the first obstacle because in their mind it will only be a proof of what they have already been told. Sure it will require more work or time for some but who cares it's not a race. Being ignorant is not the same as being mentaly handicaped. If somebody is truly saved and you would give him the option of having a bible which is accurate but might take some time to get used to, or a bible which might seem easier to read but has flaws in it the decision should be a no brainer.
> 
> If a translation hinders the accuracy of scriptures in any way (which paraphrases definitely do) it is simply not an option.



I don't think anyone here is defending a position of telling people they are "too stupid to understand the Bible." I do know people who aren't able to understand the language of the KJV, but 1) it's not because they're stupid, and 2) understanding the Bible and understanding the KJV are two entirely different concepts.

You mentioned "mentally handicapped." In addition to immigrants, I also have a friend who is very intelligent, and can discuss and converse very intelligently, but has a learning disability and cannot understand formal Bible translations. He reads a dynamic translation that suits him much better.

I also think you are making a false assumption in saying formal equivalence = accurate and dynamic equivalence = inaccurate. That's a different discussion, but see our previous discussions, especially regarding the NIV, HCSB, and NET being more accurate on Psalm 23 than the KJV, NKJV and the ESV. Like every Bible translation, the KJV has flaws, and often the dynamic equivalence translations capture the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew better than the formal equivalence translations.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 5, 2012)

elnwood said:


> I don't think anyone here is defending a position of telling people they are "too stupid to understand the Bible." I do know people who aren't able to understand the language of the KJV, but 1) it's not because they're stupid, and 2) understanding the Bible and understanding the KJV are two entirely different concepts.



I often hear the argument that the KJV is to hard to understand for most people, by affirming this would it not suppose that most people do not have the mental capacity to understand the language of the KJV?



elnwood said:


> You mentioned "mentally handicapped." In addition to immigrants, I also have a friend who is very intelligent, and can discuss and converse very intelligently, but has a learning disability and cannot understand formal Bible translations. He reads a dynamic translation that suits him much better.



I don't want to sound judgemental but are you saying he would like to be able to use a formal translation but no matter how hard he tries he cannot, therefore he "has" to use a dynamic translation? I might be wrong but this seems more like a "preference" issue. I have a hard time to read romance novels, not because I do not have the mental capacity but because I have no interest in it *and I don't see the value in it*. If my conviction changed suddenly and I would now see great value (as in life and death value) in reading romance novels I'm sure my interest would change and would be able to read them with greater ease.

Before being converted I had absolutely no interest in reading about theology, today it is one of my favorite hobbies. If your friend would have the conviction that a formal translation is superior than a dynamic translation I'm pretty sure it would suddenly become easier for him to read a formal translation. Grammatically speaking I don't think a formal translation is harder to read than a dynamic translation.




elnwood said:


> I also think you are making a false assumption in saying formal equivalence = accurate and dynamic equivalence = inaccurate. That's a different discussion, but see our previous discussions, especially regarding the NIV, HCSB, and NET being more accurate on Psalm 23 than the KJV, NKJV and the ESV. Like every Bible translation, the KJV has flaws, and often the dynamic equivalence translations capture the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew better than the formal equivalence translations.



A dynamic translation has greater potential of adding faulty interpretation into the translated text than a formal translation, of course you can't always translate word for word and even a formal translation is not free of possible biased translation but the potential is lower.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 5, 2012)

Two thoughts:
1. If a translation incorporates lots of current idiom, it will be dated almost immediately, and indecipherable quickly.("Give me some bread, man, then we'll go to your far-out pad." How many under 45 here understand that?) Classic and unadorned might be the better goal. 
2. Why should everyone _read_ the word? Yes, I think it helps faith immeasurably, but one of the reasons to translate the Bible into the European languages was so that it might be read, taught, and preached in the local tongue. 



> and God's Word in it speaks to them.


 and a few other comments in this thread reeks of neo-orthodoxy! It's better to teach from a good translation than to destroy the meaning of the original for the "person's own good."


----------



## elnwood (Jan 5, 2012)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I often hear the argument that the KJV is to hard to understand for most people, by affirming this would it not suppose that most people do not have the mental capacity to understand the language of the KJV?



Absolutely not!!! Shakespeare is hard to understand for most people. Greek and Hebrew is hard to understand for most people. Higher math is hard to understand for most people. This is not a reflection of mental capacity. It's a function of what is necessary. If people needed to understand Shakespeare, Greek, Hebrew, and higher math, people would use it. But for 99% of the populace, there is no need, so they won't learn it.

Since there are more accessible, and yes, more _accurate versions_ of the Bible than the KJV, it is not necessary to learn KJV English.



Fogetaboutit said:


> I don't want to sound judgemental but are you saying he would like to be able to use a formal translation but no matter how hard he tries he cannot, therefore he "has" to use a dynamic translation? I might be wrong but this seems more like a "preference" issue. I have a hard time to read romance novels, not because I do not have the mental capacity but because I have no interest in it and I don't see the value in it. If my conviction changed suddenly and I would now see great value (as in life and death value) in reading romance novels I'm sure my interest would change and would be able to read them with greater ease.
> 
> Before being converted I had absolutely no interest in reading about theology, today it is one of my favorite hobbies. If your friend would have the conviction that a formal translation is superior than a dynamic translation I'm pretty sure it would suddenly become easier for him to read a formal translation. Grammatically speaking I don't think a formal translation is harder to read than a dynamic translation.



I disagree that formal translations are superior, but think of it this way: is the Greek and Hebrew superior to our English translations? I assume we agree that they are. If you are converted and have that conviction, why aren't you fluent in them?

I am actually somewhat serious about this one. I don't think you need to know Greek and Hebrew, but if you don't know them, it severely limits the depth that we can have in this discussion. It was around the time when I started to do Hebrew translation that I started to realize that word-for-word translation just wasn't going to cut it in most places. You would put the word "and" in front of almost every sentence, for starters.



Fogetaboutit said:


> A dynamic translation has greater potential of adding faulty interpretation into the translated text than a formal translation, of course you can't always translate word for word and even a formal translation is not free of possible biased translation but the potential is lower.



Every translation is interpretation, and how much it interprets varies on a spectrum. Yes, on one hand, a more dynamic translation can add more interpretation. On the other hand, a word-for-word can be incoherent, or even convey an incorrect meaning. It's a balance between the two of them.

An example: 1 Kings 2:25: "And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he *fell upon him* that he died." (KJV, and similarly NASB).

As a child, this verse amused me to no end! Benaiah "fell upon him"? He must have been a really portly fellow! In this example, the word-for-word KJV and NASB are INACCURATE. They convey the wrong meaning. ESV, HCSB and NIV translate the phrase "struck him down," which is more accurate.

Yes, there can be translation bias in dynamic translation. However, what is often seen in formal translation is bias towards preserving KJV language, and this also works against accuracy. The NASB in this example preserves the KJV inaccuracy, and most English translations preserve "I will dwell in the house of the Lord *forever*," even though "forever" is not in the Hebrew. Foreign language Bibles don't have "forever" because they aren't written in the shadow of the KJV.


----------



## KMK (Jan 5, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> Two thoughts:
> 1. If a translation incorporates lots of current idiom, it will be dated almost immediately, and indecipherable quickly.("Give me some bread, man, then we'll go to your far-out pad." How many under 45 here understand that?) Classic and unadorned might be the better goal.
> 2. Why should everyone _read_ the word? Yes, I think it helps faith immeasurably, but one of the reasons to translate the Bible into the European languages was so that it might be read, taught, and preached in the local tongue.
> 
> ...



Agreed. 

Don, your argument seems to be founded upon the idea that God works through the Word to an individual in a vacuum. Union with Christ does not occur in a vacuum, it occurs in the sphere of the visible church. The criteria for choosing a Bible should not be based solely on 'what suits the individual best', but also upon the context of the local church.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 5, 2012)

The KJV was archaic (at least in some grammatical forms) when it was translated. To say that it was in the "vulgar" language did not imply that it was in any way dumbed down. The translators were intent on being FAITHFUL to the original. This included appeals that went beyond the prosaic since a huge percentage of the Bible is cast in poetic form. 

Ryken does a very persuasive job (in my opinion) showing that some of the plain speech "readable" versions skew the Bible inaccurately by the very fact that they remove language INTENDED to appeal to the emotions as well as to communicate. By making the criterion getting from point A to point B in the simplest way possible, they actually MISTRANSLATE the word. Going from "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" to "God made everything" is only OK if you conclude that the original intent was to communicate at a minimalistic level a very circumcribed packet of cognitive information.

I doubt that ANY of the English Bibles available today are too "unreadable" to be understood by the average person. The questions should relate to two issues: choice of text and translation philosophy. After many years of using pretty much all of the "readable" translations (the church even gave me the Good News Bible in leather as an ordination present 34 years ago!), I am persuaded by Ryken's call for an essentially literal translation. Besides, the Bible was intended to be read aloud and exposited before anyone thought of using it for wide-spread personal use. I'm looking for a translation that is a faithful translation and that "reads well" in the pulpit (e.g., ESV, KJV, NKJV).


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 6, 2012)

elnwood said:


> Absolutely not!!! Shakespeare is hard to understand for most people. Greek and Hebrew is hard to understand for most people. Higher math is hard to understand for most people. This is not a reflection of mental capacity. It's a function of what is necessary. If people needed to understand Shakespeare, Greek, Hebrew, and higher math, people would use it. But for 99% of the populace, there is no need, so they won't learn it.



Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read. What might be harder to understand in Shakespeare is not the words or the sintax but the meaning of the text as whole, if you translated Shakespeare's plays in "modern" english it would be just as hard to understand the underlying message.



elnwood said:


> Since there are more accessible, and yes, more accurate versions of the Bible than the KJV, it is not necessary to learn KJV English.



This is very debatable, there is too many aspect to this (validity of underlying text used, translation method etc) to debate this again in this post. Even if there's one or two verse which you might prefer the translation used in a modern version it does not make that version more accurate. Pick one single version and stick with only that one version and compare it with the KJV on all aspect (validity of differing readings, omissions/additions of verses or words, philosophy used to compile underlying Greek text, translation method, faithfulness of the translation to the original language, etc.) and then we might come to a conclusion on which translation is more accurate.

But in any case my point in this thread was only to debate the validity of dynamic translations and to point out that it doesn’t make the text grammatically easier to understand than a formal translation. I didn’t use the NASB or other formal translations as examples because I do not support the underlying text used to translate them but this is beside the point for now. By using dynamic equivalence in essence what you are doing is saying that you do not like the way the text is presented in the bible and if it would have been up to you this is how you would have written it. The biblical authors guided by the Holy Spirit wrote the scriptures a certain way and I believe we should be as faithful as possible to the originals when translating them. Even if a message can be delivered different ways I don’t think we have the liberty to change the way it is delivered when we translate the scriptures and should always strive to be as faithful to the original as possible.



elnwood said:


> I disagree that formal translations are superior, but think of it this way: is the Greek and Hebrew superior to our English translations? I assume we agree that they are. If you are converted and have that conviction, why aren't you fluent in them?



Here you are jumping into a different area altogether, what we are discussing here is the validity of translation method within the same language not the superiority of the original language vs a translation. And yes I do believe learning Greek and Hebrew to be valuable but this has nothing to do with our current conversation. Learning Hebrew and Greek or getting used to a formal English translation when you are already fluent in English is not comparable.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 6, 2012)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.


Some would disagree with this point:

Bible Translation Guide

AMR


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 6, 2012)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> As I've studied the translation issue, and read my own copies, it has become obvious that the dynamic and paraphrase Bibles (NLT, CEB, CEV, The "Massage" and Living Bibles) have grown to confuse "readability" with "how we speak today." They've used things like contractions and slang words more and more, and insist "we need to have a readable Bible" alongside of "having a Bible that speaks like we do."


I would hate to have a Bible that sounds like some southerners. I'm from the North so I'm a bit biased


----------



## KMK (Jan 6, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.
> ...



Who is Jonathon Tate?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 6, 2012)

KMK said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Fogetaboutit said:
> ...


He is the "mayor" of 

http://www.tateville.com/

then see

Tateville 2011 - The Mayor's Mansion


----------



## gracea1one (Jan 6, 2012)

Here is a link some might find interesting...it is a launchpad to several videos of a symposium last fall comparing several versions (NIV vs ESV vs HCSB) and seems to get at some of the issues about readability brought up in this forum. So far I've only watched the video on the ESV by Grudem (Video 2), but I would highly recommend it!

EFCA | Which Bible Translation Should I Use?


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 7, 2012)

I may have a unique perspective to add to the conversation. My formal schooling ended with my finishing eighth grade and going into ninth briefly. I did read well for my grade level and continued to read widely after I left school. I am old to enough to have been exposed to the AV when it and, as far as I know, the RSV, and ASV were the only translations generally available. The AV was the mainstay of believers in the 1950s, '60s until the newer versions began to appear in the '70s and beyond. 

In my teens I can remember being confused when our Lord said "suffer the little children to come unto Me." I had to ask and once told that in the English of the time 'suffer' meant allow I understood. The same with similar archaic terms that I encountered as I read the AV in my youth. I'm not saying that because I have little formal education 'anyone' can do well with the AV. Just that in my youth there were few alternatives. 

When I was a young man, forty plus years ago, if you went to a Baptist church the preacher was reading out of the King James version and that was what was in the pew in front of you. Since the '70s, as we all know, things have changed and there are so many alternatives. The cow is out of the barn and it is too late to close the door I suppose.

I read the AV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. Pretty much in that order. I too feel that accuracy is paramount and lament the fact that there are so many dynamic translations coming to the fore. On the other hand, as Paul said, whether the gospel is preached out of good motives or bad, as long as it is preached and souls are saved , that is what is important.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jan 7, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



That would be yours truly. I got the "grade level" from various charts online.

BTW - The reason KJVOs say the KJV is the "most readable" is because some readability charts go by the length of words. This is a non-sequitur, as "wot", "wist", and a lot of archaic words are shorter than words we use today.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 9, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Originally Posted by Fogetaboutit
> Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.
> Some would disagree with this point:
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I would trust Zondervan to tell me which bible is more faithful to the original writtings but maybe it's just me. The ESV more "word for word" than the KJV??


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 9, 2012)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> That would be yours truly. I got the "grade level" from various charts online.


Hah! Am glad the connection is now made! I appreciate the effort you put into that material.

AMR


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 9, 2012)

Don't trust Zondervan? Shocking! Now that Harper Collins (= NewsCorp = Rupert Murdoch), the #2 publisher, owns Zondervan and is acquiring Thomas Nelson (the #6 publisher), that puts a large market share under the Murdoch hegemony.


----------



## reformed28 (Feb 4, 2012)

Looks like Trinitarian Bible Society or Crossway!


----------



## FedByRavens (Feb 4, 2012)

I think the NASB is underrated.


----------



## Edward (Feb 4, 2012)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I'm not sure I would trust Zondervan to tell me which bible is more faithful to the original writtings



I don't know. The correctly show that the TNIV is as far as you can get from either word for word or dynamic equivalence. Of course, I wouldn't put it on a list of Bibles, anyway.


----------



## athanatos (Feb 4, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> The final clause consists of just four words in the original: *εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς*. Most English versions translate this as “He loved them to the end”.
> But suppose this person we are concerned about, or his teacher, is reading from the NIRV?
> 
> The NIRV renders the verse thusly:
> ...



I might be nit-picky, but ... what does word count matter? I understand that this example shows that they added not only words, but content... Yet I think I could translate the 4-word greek phrase into a 2-word Hebrew phrase. Am I somehow cutting short the gospel, would it be short changing God's word? I only emphasize this because your rhetorical force was bolded.

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

Sorry, I didn't realize that his post was almost a month old.


----------

