# Today's English Version



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 11, 2005)

*Today\'s English Version*

I have heard some people say that 'Today's English Version' is also the Good News Bible? What do people think of it? I have not read toooooo much about it but I bought a copy the other day as part of a Chinese Bible (English text next to the Chinese). I would not recommend it for study but as far as modern translations go I believe it is reasonable. I looked up the verses on election etc... and they seemed to back up predestination about as forceably (if not more) than most good translations. I even found it condemning homosexuality with much stronger words than the NIV. It might not be a good study bible but I would probably use it to show to a person who's English is a second language and can not possibly be expected to understand first off theological terms and complex sentences. What do you all think? Please note I am not supporting this as a bible that is good for study etc... but more along the lines of being good for a poor English speaker or reader if you wanted to show them passages to back up your claims etc...

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 11, 2005)

Another question - is it better or worse than the average "modern day" translation and would you even describe it as a flimsy modern translation? What translation would you recommend for people with very little English which is not too modern or mamby-pamby liberal?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 12, 2005)

I don't like it. I don't like most non-literal translations.

The NIV is a hybrid - about 60% literal, 40% thought-for-thought. I don't mind it as much, since it's very strong on the Deity of Christ.

I like the ESV and NKJV.

The only non-literal translation I somewhat like is the NLT, particularly its' take on Romans 9.


----------



## Philip A (Feb 14, 2005)

The Today's English Version is indeed the Good News Bible; basically, it is a dumbed down, liberal, dynamic equivalence version.

I'll give a quote from the man who translated it:




> "Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To qualify this absurd claim by adding 'with respect to the autographs' is a bit of sophistry, a specious attempt to justify a patent error ... No thruth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God ... No one seriously claims that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications ... Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek 35 to 50 years later do not necessarily wield compelling or authentic authority over us today. The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do."





You can read all about it HERE


----------

